OIG Semi-Annual Report Volume I January-June 2017

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT January-June 2017 Volume I August 2017 Fairness • Integrity • Respect • Service • Transparency Office of the Inspector General SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT January-June 2017 Volume I Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General Shaun R. Spillane Public Information Officer August 2017 Foreword This 25th Semi-Annual Report covers the period of January through June 2017. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 6133 et seq., the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is required to report semi-annually on its oversight of the Office oflnternal Affairs investigations and the employee discipline process within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or the department). Volume I, contained herein, is a summary of the OIG's monitoring of these areas. In addition to its oversight of CDCR's employee discipline process, the OIG also uses a real-time monitoring model to provide oversight and transparency in several other areas within the state prison system, including use of force, contraband surveillance watch, critical incidents, and field inquiries. Volume II is a summary of the OIG's monitoring of these additional areas. Volume I reports hiring authorities found employee misconduct in 130 out of the 194 administrative cases reported and imposed disciplinary action ranging from letters of reprimand to dismissal. There were 61 appeals taken by employees with settlements reached in 54 of those cases. This report discusses the performance of the Office oflnternal Affairs, department attorneys, and hiring authorities. The Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel continued its efficient processing of cases with more than 98 percent of cases processed within the 30-day requirement. There were 1,025 cases referred to the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit. The Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel opened 932 cases, 91 percent of the total referred, and the OIG accepted 254 (27 percent) for monitoring. Of the 1,025 cases, the OIG agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel decisions in 89 percent of the cases. The largest area of disagreement was peace officer dishonesty cases, which is discussed in the report. The lack of a reasonable timeliness standard for Office of Internal Affairs special agents to complete investigations remains an issue and is discussed in the report. The largest percentage of delayed investigations was in the central region of the Office oflnternal Affairs. The overall timeliness for completing investigations is discussed but not considered in assessing the department's overall performance. The department's performance in the Pre-Disciplinary Phase has worsened in the procedural ratings, particularly in the central region, while it has improved in the substantive ratings. Meanwhile, the department improved its ratings in the Disciplinary Phase. The details are discussed in this 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 VOLUME I Table of Contents Discipline Monitoring Activities ..................................................................................................... 1 The Employee Discipline Process .................................................................................................. .3 Monitoring the Pre-Disciplinary Phase ............................................................................................ 5 Monitoring Hiring Authority Referrals ................................................................................... 5 Monitoring the Office ofinternalA.ffairs Central Intake Panel. ............................................. 6 Office ofI nternal Affairs Central Intake Panel Inappropriate Decisions ....................... 7 Allegation Type Distribution ................................................................................................... 9 Monitoring the Investigation ................................................................................................. 10 Timeliness ofCommencing and Completing Investigations .......................................... 10 Need for the Department to Change Its Policies Regarding Cell Entries ..................... 13 Monitoring the Disciplinary Phase ................................................................................................ 15 Need for Department Attorneys to Improve Their Peiformance in Disciplinary Cases ....... 18 Case Sufficiency Ratings ............................................................................................................... 20 Volume I Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 29 Volume I Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 30 Volume I Recommendations from Prior Reporting Periods ......................................................... .31 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 33 List of Charts Chart 1: Percent ofC ases Referred to the Office ofI nternal Affairs Central Intake Panel by the Hiring Authority within 45 Days ..................................................................... S Chart 2: Cases Opened by the Office ofI nternal Affairs and Accepted for OIG Monitoring ........................................................................................................................... 6 Chart 3: Percent ofC ases with Timely Determinations by the Office ofI nternal Affairs Central Intake Panel ................................................................................................ 7 Chart 4: OIG Agreement and Disagreement with the Office ofI nternal Affairs· Initial Case Determinations ................................................................................................. 8 Chart 5: Allegations in Cases Monitored and Closed by the OIG January-June 2017. ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Chart 6: Timeliness ofOIG-Monitored Investigations After March 1. 2016 ................................. 12 Chart 7: Timeliness ofH iring Authority Referrals to the Office ofI nternal Affairs ...................... 13 Chart 8: Timeliness ofH iring Authority Conducting Findings and Penalties Conferences. ....................................................................................................................... 15 Chart 9: Department Attorney Performance .................................................................................. 19 Chart 10: Department Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Ratings by Region .............................................................................................................. 22 Chart 11: Department Disciplinary Phase Sufficiency Ratings by Region .................................... 25 Chart 12: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase ............................................................................................................ 28 Chart 13: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Disciplinary Phase ............................... 28 Discipline Monitoring Activities The Discipline Monitoring Unit of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for monitoring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR or the department) employee discipline process. The OIG monitors and assesses the department's most serious internal investigations of alleged employee misconduct, as well as the hiring authority's disciplinary decisions. If the hiring authority sustains any allegations, the OIG continues monitoring the quality of the legal representation for the department and any subsequent appeal. Volume I is a summary of OIG monitoring activities for both administrative and criminal investigations, as well as an assessment of the disciplinary process. The OIG assessment is based on its duties pursuant to Penal Code Section 6133. Part of the assessment is based on CDCR's adherence to its own policy and part is based on the OIG's expert opinion regarding the quality of the investigation. Additionally, the OIG assesses cases based on what the OIG believes are appropriate dispositions and levels of discipline. The OIG reports each administrative case in two separate phases, the Pre-Disciplinary and the Disciplinary Phase. There is a procedural and a substantive assessment for each phase of a case. The procedural assessment rates the department's adherence to its own policies. Internal investigations are complex with many procedural aspects. While the OIG understands that minor procedural errors do not necessarily render an investigation insufficient, major or multiple departures from the process are unacceptable because they eventually cause breakdowns and lead to substantive insufficiencies. The substantive assessment rates whether the investigation accomplished the goal of the Pre-Disciplinary Phase of providing the hiring authority with adequate information to make a decision supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The substantive assessment also reports the OIG's opinion whether the department attorney performed competently, as well as whether the hiring authority made correct decisions. If there is an identifiable detriment to the investigation, the OIG rates it substantively insufficient. The department is expected to conduct timely and quality investigations, avoiding the necessity for a hiring authority to make a decision based on delayed or incomplete information. In this reporting period, the OIG is assessing whether the Office of Internal Affairs special agents timely and sufficiently completed investigations. Pursuant to the Department Operations Manual, Section 31140.30, internal investigations "shall be conducted with due diligence and completed in a timely manner in accordance with the law, applicable MOU's [sic], and the Office of Internal Affairs' Investigator Field Guide." The OIG's assessment includes an appraisal of the department's conformance to this directive. Beginning with investigations opened March I, 2016, the OIG reviews timeliness of the investigation based on whether it was completed within six months of discovery of the alleged misconduct. The Combined Phase, Appendix A, contains those cases where an administrative investigation is completed and the hiring authority makes a decision regarding the investigation, allegations, and discipline, and that decision has become final. Cases where the hiring authority did not sustain any misconduct allegations are also included in the Combined Phase appendix. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 1 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Disciplinary Phase, cases are reported once the department makes a decision to impose discipline and after completion of any appeal process. These cases are reported in Appendix B, titled Disciplinary Phase. The Disciplinary and Combined Phase appendices include cases where the Office oflnternal Affairs approved direct disciplinary action without a full investigation because it deemed the facts sufficiently established. Sometimes these cases include an interview of the employee who is the subject of the investigation. The Disciplinary and Combined Phase appendices set forth the penalties imposed. The OIG reports the highest initial and the highest final penalty for each employee's misconduct. The initial penalty is the penalty the hiring authority selected. The final penalty may be different because new information caused a hiring authority to change the penalty or enter into a settlement (a mutual agreement between the department and employee). It includes a change to the penalty resulting from a State Personnel Board decision after hearing. The final penalty reported is always the highest penalty imposed for misconduct by any of the employees. If the department conducted a criminal investigation, the case is reported in Appendix C, titled Investigative Phase Cases. The OIG reports these cases once the Office oflnternal Affairs completes its criminal investigation and either refers the case to a prosecuting agency, such as the district attorney's office or the United States Attorney's Office, or determines there is insufficient evidence for a criminal referral. This report provides an assessment of210 monitored cases that closed from January I, 2017, through June 30, 2017. Administrative misconduct was alleged in 194 cases and includes cases investigated, cases with interviews of only the employee or employees who were subject of the investigation, and cases where there were sufficient facts to proceed without an investigation. The remaining 16 cases involved alleged criminal misconduct. The reported cases are those that concluded during this period. In order to protect the integrity of the process, the OIG only reports those cases after all proceedings are final. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE2 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The Employee Discipline Process Whenever the department reasonably believes employee misconduct may have occurred, the hiring authority is responsible for timely requesting an investigation or approval for direct action from the Office of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority refers the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit. The Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel subsequently determines whether an internal investigation is warranted, whether enough information exists for the department to proceed without an investigation, whether an interview of the employee(s) is necessary, or whether there is no reasonable belief misconduct has occurred. The OIG participates in the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel meetings to monitor the process, provide recommendations regarding Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel determinations, and determine which cases the OIG will monitor. The following table is the OIG guide for determining which cases it accepts for monitoring: Madrid-Related OIG Monitoring Threshold Criteria1 Use of force resulting in, or which could have resulted in, serious injury or death or Use ofForce discharge of a deadly weapon. Perjury; material misrepresentation in an official law enforcement report; failure to report Dishonesty 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 against Obstruction 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 which High Profile there is heightened public interest, or resulting 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 misdemeanors Criminal Conduct such as those involving domestic violence, brandishing a firearm, and assault with a firearm). 1 Madridv. (Gomez) Cate, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995). SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE3 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The OIG only monitors the most serious allegations of misconduct. For the January through June 2017 period, the OIG accepted for monitoring 27 percent of the cases opened by the Office of Internal Affairs. Once the OIG accepts a case for monitoring, the OIG monitors the case through the entire process. If the Office oflnternal Affairs conducts an investigation, the assigned OIG attorney, a Special Assistant Inspector General, monitors the investigation. The investigators and the department attorney, if one is designated, consult with the Special Assistant Inspector General throughout the process. When the investigation is complete, the hiring authority is required to review the investigative report within 14 days of receipt. Policy requires the hiring authority to consult with the assigned Special Assistant Inspector General regarding the findings and discipline decisions. If the Special Assistant Inspector General believes the hiring authority's decision is unreasonable, the OIG may elevate the matter to a higher management level through an executive review process. 2 Employees have a right to challenge any discipline imposed against them by filing an appeal with the State Personnel Board, an independent state agency. The OIG continues monitoring cases through the appeal process. During this process, a case may conclude by way of settlement, 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 superior court, the OIG monitors the case until final resolution. The OIG assesses cases as sufficient or insufficient based upon the department's performance as a whole. It is up to the department to determine which entity within the department is responsible for a particular assessment. Parties responsible for the department's deficient performance can be determined from comments in the appendices. 2 Department Operations Manual, Section 33030.14. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE4 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Monitoring the Pre-Disciplinary Phase The Pre-Disciplinary Phase starts when either the hiring authority submits a case to the Office of Internal Affairs or the Office of Internal Affairs opens a case on its own. The vast majority of cases are based on hiring authority referrals. The Pre-Disciplinary Phase ends when the hiring authority determines whether the investigation was sufficient and whether to sustain any of the allegations. This phase involves hiring authorities, Office of Internal Affairs special agents, and department attorneys, if assigned. 3 It is not purely an investigative phase, although an investigation is often a major component. MONITORING HIRING AUTHORITY REFERRALS The OIG monitors the timeliness of hiring authority case referrals to the Office of Internal Affairs. The department standard requires case referral within 45 days from the date the hiring authority discovers potential misconduct. During the last reporting period of July through December 2016, hiring authorities timely referred 81 percent ofthe cases monitored by the OIG. For the period of January through June 2017, hiring authorities timely referred 63 percent of the OIG-monitored cases to the Office of Internal Affairs, a sharp decrease since the last report. Chart 1 below displays the percent of cases referred to the Office of Internal Affairs within 45 days during the past five reporting periods. Timely referrals are the first step to ensuring completion of a thorough and timely investigation. Until this reporting period, beginning January 2015, there had been a consistent improvement in the timeliness of hiring authority referrals. However, in 37 percent of cases during the January through June 2017 period, hiring authorities referred cases to the Office of Internal Affairs after the 45 days allowed by policy. Improving the timeliness ofthe initial referral will allow more investigations to be completed expeditiously. The largest percentage of delayed referrals came from central region institutions, with more than half of the late referrals attributed to two institutions. The OIG is monitoring the timeliness of hiring authority referrals to identify hiring authorities and processes that might be delaying referrals in order to assist the department in addressing this deficiency. Chart 1: Percent of Cases Referred to the Office ofI nternal Affairs Central Intake Panel bv the Hiring Authority within 45 Days 90o/o ~------------------------------------------------------------ 85o/o +-----------------------------------------_-_-.- ----------------- 80% +------------------------~--~,_~~----------- ?So/o +------------------------------~~--~~~--------~~~------------ 70% L~~~~---~~~~~~~----~"="------ 65o/o +-------------------------------------------------~,~~---- 60o/o ~------------------------------------------------------------ ~Jan-Jun2015 ~Jul-Dec 2015 ~Jan-Jun 2016 ~Jul-Dec 2016 ~Jan-Jun2017 SAR Reporting Period 3 Not every case is assigned to a department attorney in the Pre-Disciplinary Phase. Investigators from the Office of Internal Affairs are referred to as "special agents." SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGES OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA MONITORING THE OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS CENTRAL INTAKE PANEL Pursuant to the Department Operations l\!Ianual, Section 31140.3, the Office oflnternal Affairs Central Intake Panel is a collection of stakeholders, led by the Office oflnternal Affairs, which is to ensure all referred allegations of employee misconduct are consistently evaluated. Individuals who participate regularly in the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel include, but are not limited to, the Deputy Director of the Office oflnternal Affairs, or designee; the Assistant ChiefDeputy Inspector General, or designee; the Chief Counsel of the Employee Advocacy and Prosecution Team, or designee; assigned special agents; and other pertinent departmental representatives. The Deputy Director has the authority to initiate internal affairs investigations and is ultimately responsible for the acceptance or rejection of all cases reviewed by the Office oflnternal Affairs Central Intake Panel. The Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel meets weekly to review referrals for investigation submitted from throughout the department. OIG Special Assistant Inspectors General review the referrals and attend each weekly meeting. The Special Assistant Inspector General provides recommendations to the department regarding whether the department should investigate a matter and the level of investigation needed, and identifies those cases the OIG will monitor. In the six-month reporting period of January through June 2017, the OIG reviewed 1,025 cases forwarded to the Office oflnternal Affairs for evaluation. The Office oflnternal Affairs opened 932 of those cases, or 91 percent. Of the 932 cases the Office oflnternal Affairs opened, the OIG accepted 254 cases for monitoring, or 27 percent. Chart 2: Cases Opened hv the Office o(lnternal Affairs andA ccepted (or 0/G Monitoring • Cases Reviewed but Not Opened by • Cases Accepted for Monitoring by the the Office oflntemal Affairs (93) OIG (254) • Cases Reviewed and Opened by the • Cases Not Accepted for Monitoring by Office oflntemal Affairs (932) the OIG (678) 1,025 Total Cases 932 Total Cases SEJ1.1I-ANNuALREPORTVOLUMEI JANUARY-JUNE2017 PAGE6 0FF1CE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Departmental policy requires the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel to make a determination regarding the case within 30 days of referral. During the July through December 2016 reporting period, the Office oflnternal Affairs Central Intake Panel timely addressed 98 percent of monitored cases. During the current January through June 2017 reporting period, the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel again timely addressed 98 percent of monitored cases. Chart 3 reflects the trend for timely determinations during the past five reporting periods. A timely initial determination by the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel is critical to completing a timely investigation. Chart 3: Percent of Cases with Timely Determinations bv the Office ofI nternal Affairs Central Intake Panel 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% ~Jan-Jnn2015 ~Jul-Dec 2015 ~Jan-Jun 2016 ~Jul-Dec 2016 ~Jan-Jnn2017 SAR Reporting Period Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel Inappropriate Decisions The Office of Internal Affairs may reject a case because there is no reasonable belief misconduct has occurred, return the case to the hiring authority to take action without an investigation, return the case to the hiring authority to take action after an interview of the subjects(s) of the investigation, or open an administrative or criminal investigation. The OIG agreed with the Office oflnternal Affairs' determination in 89 percent ofthe 1,025 cases reviewed by the Office oflnternal Affairs Central Intake Panel (Chart 4). Any disagreements were typically due to the OIG opinion there was a faulty, speculative, or ill-informed analysis by the Office of Internal Affairs. Office of Internal Affairs special agents' speculative opinions as to motivation behind potential misconduct still negatively influence decisions. Of the 11 percent of cases in which the OIG disagreed, the most common cause of disagreement was the Office oflnternal Affairs' decision not to add a dishonesty allegation to a case.4 Other disagreements arose from the Office oflnternal Affairs' rejection of OIG recommendations for an investigation and recommendations for an interview of the employee in cases where a full investigation was not authorized by the Office oflnternal Affairs. From January to June 2017, the Office of Internal Affairs rejected the OIG recommendation to open an investigation or interview the employee(s) in six instances. It also rejected the OIG recommendation to open a full investigation in 31 other cases. The Office oflnternal Affairs also rejected an OIG recommendation to interview employees in 20 cases and it declined to accept a recommendation 4 The number of disagreements is greater than the number of cases where the OIG disagreed with the panel's decision because there were often multiple disagreements in a single case. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE7 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA to include additional employees as subjects ofthe investigation in 13 cases. Lastly, in 68 cases, the Office of Internal Affairs declined to accept an OIG recommendation to add allegations, including 37 cases where the OIG recommended adding dishonesty allegations. In many of the cases, the OIG and the department attorney agreed on a recommendation and the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Panel special agents, who are not attorneys, substituted their legal analysis and judgment for that of experienced attorneys and rejected the recommendations. In one ofthese cases, the Office oflnternal Affairs rejected the hiring authority's request for an investigation and approved disciplinary action without an investigation even though the OIG and the department attorney recommended opening an investigation. Two employees were served with disciplinary actions, but the department later withdrew the disciplinary actions after the employees provided new information. The department would have discovered this information during an investigation if one had been approved by the Office of Internal Affairs. However, the hiring authority was forced to make a decision without having all material information and the two employees were subjected to needless distress until they presented the new information and hiring authority withdrew the disciplinary actions. Chart 4: 0/G Agreement and Disagreement with the Office o(Internal Affairs' Initial Case Determinations • OIG Agreed with the Office of Internal Affairs' Decision • OIG Disagreed with the Office oflntemal Affairs' Decision • OIG Disagreed with Decision Not to Allege Dishonesty • OIG Disagreed with Decision Other Than Dishonesty SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE8 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALLEGATION TYPE DISTRIBUTION The OIG continues to focus a large portion of its monitoring activities on cases involving core Madrid issues. 5 The core Madrid allegations involve umeasonable use of force, dishonesty, code of silence, and failure to report misconduct. Cases involving alleged misconduct by peace officers are given priority for monitoring. In this reporting period, the OIG monitored cases involving 373 peace officers, representing 93 percent of all subjects reported in the monitoring tables. Chart 5 below provides a summary of the allegations, both core Madrid allegations and other non-criminal allegation types, for the cases being reported. A single case may contain multiple allegations of misconduct and allege misconduct by more than one employee. Therefore, the number of allegations exceeds the number of cases. In addition, numerous allegation types cannot be classified into narrow categories and, therefore, are not captured in Chart 5. However, Chart 5 reflects the percentage of the specific categories when compared to the total number of allegations in monitored cases, including those that do not fit into the specific categories identified. The chart is intended to only reflect the allegation distribution for the cases the OIG monitored and reported during the January through June 2017 reporting period, except for criminal investigation cases. Chart 5: Allegations in Cases Monitored and Closed bv the 0/G January-June 2017 Contraband Code of Silence Insubordination Failure to Report Over-Familiarity Failure to Report Use of Force Umeasonable Use of Force Failure of Good Behavior Dishonesty Neglecty of Duty 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Finally, as noted previously in several Semi-Annual Reports, the allegations do not always follow the disciplinary matrix. For example, a critical Madrid allegation is "code of silence." The department's case management system does not have an allegation that corresponds to code of silence. In cases where the alleged misconduct is code of silence, the department instead charges 5 Madridv. (Gomez) Cate, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995). SEJ1.1I-ANNuALREPORTVOLUMEI JANUARY-JUNE2017 PAGE9 0FF1CE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA "failure of good behavior" or "failure to report." Likewise, as noted previously, when an officer is involved in a domestic violence incident, the Office of Internal Affairs usually lists the allegation as "discourteous treatment" or "failure of good behavior." The department reports it has formed a working group to address this issue, but has not reported on recent progress, if any, of this group's work, nor has it provided an anticipated completion date. The OIG will continue to monitor the department's efforts in this regard. MONITORING THE INvESTIGATION The OIG monitors and provides transparency for the entire investigative process for both administrative and criminal investigations. The OIG monitoring encompasses all participants in this process: the department hiring authorities, Office oflnternal Affairs special agents, and department attorneys from the Office of Legal Affairs Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team. Any or all of the participants' performance may contribute to the OIG rating. The OIG rates the department as a whole and cautions the reader not to assume an insufficient rating is aimed at any one participant. Monitoring includes providing recommendations regarding the scope of the investigation, attending interviews, reviewing evidence and investigative reports, as well as monitoring the timeliness of the investigative process. As noted previously, pursuant to Penal Code Section 6133, the OIG reports its expert opinion regarding the quality of the investigation as a whole, as well as the department's compliance with policy. Timeliness of Commencing and Completing Investigations In the past, the OIG reported that the Office of Internal Affairs delayed beginning investigations, resulting in delayed completion. A core Madr id concern was the department's failure to timely complete investigations, often resulting in the time limit for taking disciplinary action precluding the imposition of discipline. That extreme is now rare on monitored cases. Still, the deadline for taking disciplinary action should not be the standard for measuring diligence in conducting investigations. The department must focus on completing investigations as soon as possible after alleged misconduct is discovered rather than how much time remains before the deadline for taking disciplinary action expires. As explained in prior reports, investigation delays are harmful because affected employees are left in career limbo. Memories degrade over time, physical evidence may be lost, and the department may incur civil liability if the misconduct continues. In short, timely investigation of alleged misconduct will reduce negative consequences for both employees and the department. As part of the Madrid reforms, the department adopted time lines so that each party in the disciplinary process would have sufficient time to complete its part of the process. Pursuant to Department Operations Manual, Section 33030.13, "(a)s soon as operationally feasible, but no more than twenty-one (21) calendar days following receipt of the investigative report, the Vertical Advocate shall review the investigative report and supporting documentation and provide feedback to the assigned investigator."6 The policy also requires that the hiring authority review the investigative report and supporting documentation no more than 14 calendar days 6 A vertical advocate is a department attorney who litigates CDCR employee discipline cases. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 10 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA following the receipt of the report. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the investigation is sufficient, the allegations are supported, the facts support disciplinary action, and the appropriate penalty is determined. The OIG continues to recommend that the department develop a policy for timely completion of investigations. The department agrees the sooner an investigation is completed the better served are complainants, hiring authorities, employees, and the public. The Office oflnternal Affairs has made progress in reducing vacancies and lowering the average time for completing investigations, but it could still be improved, and as discussed below, hiring authorities are sometimes the cause for the delays. As of March 1, 2016, the OIG modified its standard for assessing the timeliness of investigations. This change is based on the OIG's discussion in the July through December 2015 SAR reporting period regarding industry standards and best practices in conducting internal investigations. As the OIG then discovered, most other law enforcement agencies complete internal investigations as soon as possible after the alleged misconduct is discovered rather than determine how much time remains before the expiration of the deadline to take disciplinary action. Consequently, as of March 1, 2016, the OIG began assessing timeliness based on how many cases were completed within six months of the date of discovery, meeting this industry standard. The OIG is still reporting on a handful of cases closed during this reporting period using the standard for assessing the timeliness of investigations in place before March 1, 2016. Using this standard, there was one case where specific harm can be attributed to the delayed investigation. The delayed investigation prevented a hiring authority from taking action on an allegation that an officer used steroids without a prescription. In this volume are 107 cases reported where the Office of Internal Affairs commenced an investigation or conducted an interview of an employee after March 1, 2016. Of these cases, the Office of Internal Affairs completed 34 percent within six months of the department learning of the alleged misconduct (Chart 6). Both hiring authorities and the Office of Internal Affairs contributed to the delays. Cases investigated by the Office of Internal Affairs' central region were the least timely, with 19 percent completed within six months. The Office oflnternal Affairs' northern region performed better, with 35 percent of investigations completed within six months. The Office of Internal Affairs' southern region completed 53 percent of its investigations within six months. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 11 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart 6: Timeliness o(OIG-Monitoredlnvestigations After March 1, 2016 North Central • Completed • Completed Within Six Within Six Months Months • Not Completed • Not Completed Within Six Within Six Months Months South Statewide • Completed • Completed Within Six Within Six Months Months • Not Completed • Not Completed Within Six Within Six Months Months This mirrors the delay by hiring authorities (HA) in submitting requests for investigation to the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA), as reflected in Chart 7. Central region hiring authorities timely submitted requests for investigation within the 45 days required by policy in 44 percent of the time. Northern region hiring authorities timely submitted requests for investigation in 67 percent of the cases, while hiring authorities in the southern region timely submitted requests for investigations in 73 percent ofthe cases. In one criminal case, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until 49 days after learning of the misconduct, and the Office oflnternal Affairs did not complete its investigation until more than a year after being referred the case. Part of the delay was because the Office of Internal Affairs repeated investigative actions already completed by the institution's investigative services unit. In another criminal case, the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs untillOl days after learning ofthe misconduct, and the Office oflnternal Affairs did not complete its investigation for another nine months. During the pendency of this case, the deadline for filing misdemeanor charges expired. There were seven cases where the Office of Internal Affairs failed to conduct a thorough and complete investigation by not interviewing critical witnesses, not forensically analyzing SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 12 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA computers seized during the service of search warrants, not forensically analyzing a questioned document, not timely conducting a forensic analysis of a department computer, not adequately preparing for interviews, providing confidential information to a hiring authority with a conflict of interest, and allowing inmates to destroy potentially critical evidence. In six of those cases, completion of the investigation was untimely, and in four cases, the hiring authority delayed referring the case to the Office oflnternal Affairs. The parts of the investigative process are interrelated and a failure in one part of the process may compromise other parts and ultimately lead to an ineffective investigative effort. Chart 7: Timeliness o(Hiring Authoritv Referrals to the Office o(lnternalAffairs North Central • The HA Referred • The HA Referred the Matter to the the Matter to the OIA Within 45 OIA Within 45 Days Days • The HA Did Not • The HA Did Not Refer the Matter Refer the Matter to the OIA to the OIA Within 45 Days Within 45 Days South Statewide • The HA Referred • The HA Referred the Matter to the the Matter to the OIA Within 45 OIA Within 45 Days Days • The HA Did Not • The HA Did Not Refer the Matter Refer the Matter to the OIA to the OIA Within 45 Days Within 45 Days Need for the Department to Change Its Policies Regarding Cell Entries Departmental use-of-force and cell extraction policies prohibit Office of Internal Affairs special agents conducting criminal investigations to enter a cell and prevent the loss and destruction of evidence. 7 In a case being reporting during this period, Office of Internal Affairs conducted an operation in June 2016 at an institution as part of its investigation into allegations of an officer's sexual misconduct with an inmate and the officer's smuggling of drugs and mobile phones. Office of Internal Affairs special agents believed that several inmates associated with the officer and housed in the administrative segregation unit had mobile phones, notes, or other evidence to establish this connection. The Office of Internal Affairs planned and executed a large-scale 7 Department Operations Manual, Sections 51020.4, 51020.11, 51020.11.1, and 51020.12.2. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 13 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA operation to retrieve evidence from the cells of the inmates in the administrative segregation unit without considering the need for a controlled use of force in the event the targeted inmates did not cooperate and come out of their cells. The operation included Office oflnternal Affairs special agents, officers from the investigative services unit, and drug dogs from other institutions. However, when the Office oflnternal Affairs special agents and investigative services unit officers descended upon the administrative segregation unit, the special agents and investigative services unit officers would not enter the cells of the inmates to conduct searches or retrieve evidence until the inmate occupying the cell voluntarily exited the cell. The target inmates chose not to exit immediately and officers who were standing outside the cells observed the inmates destroy mobile phones and flush notes and letters. Officers called out what evidence they observed the inmates destroying while the inmates yelled to each other about what evidence should be destroyed. The Office of Internal Affairs special agents would not enter the cells because of the cell extraction and use-of-force policies. The inaction of the Office oflnternal Affairs resulted in the loss of evidence. Ultimately, the Office of Internal Affairs found insufficient evidence to support a probable cause determination of criminal misconduct. A reasonable inference from the inmates' destruction of evidence in the presence of special agents from the Office of Internal Affairs is the evidence destroyed may have been critical evidence of criminal misconduct. Departmental use-of-force and cell extraction policies do not permit an exception for cell entries in those instances in which evidence is ostensibly being destroyed, even though the inmates have significantly reduced Fourth Amendment protections of property in their cells. The Office of Internal Affairs Investigator Field Guide also does not address this issue. In most other situations where investigators are conducting a criminal investigation, an officer may make a warrantless entry of a residence to stop a private citizen from destroying evidence for a jailable offense. Nevertheless, an Office oflnternal Affairs criminal team special agent cannot enter an inmate's cell to do the same. An inmate destroying contraband in his or her cell has more protection than a private citizen observed destroying evidence in his or her residence. As such, the OIG recommends that the department develop guidelines and exceptions to its cell entry policies and procedures for Office oflnternal Affairs special agents conducting criminal investigations to prevent the loss and destruction of evidence. One reasonable alternative is for the department to place the inmates on a yard before the special agents and officers search the cell or cells. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 14 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Monitoring the Disciplinary Phase After the Office of Internal Affairs returns a case to the hiring authority, and based on the evidence presented in direct action cases or collected in cases in which the Office of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation, the hiring authority must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to make a finding. If there is insufficient evidence to make a finding, the hiring authority may request further investigation or elect to make no finding. If there is sufficient evidence, the hiring authority will determine whether the allegations are sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or whether the employee is exonerated. The hiring authority consults with a department attorney, if one is assigned, and the OIG if the case is monitored. The hiring authority considers each case on its individual merits to make appropriate findings. This consultation is known as the findings and penalty conference and the hiring authority is required to conduct this review within 14 days from the time the investigation is complete or the case is returned for imposition of discipline without an investigation. 8 Compliance with this timeliness requirement is assessed by the OIG in all monitored cases. For the January through June 2017 reporting period, hiring authorities timely conducted findings and penalty conference in 71 percent of cases. Chart 8: Timeliness ofH iring Authoritv Conducting Findings and Penalties Conferences North Central • The HA Timely • The HA Timely Conducted the Conducted the Findings and Findings and Penalty Penalty Conference Conference • The HA Did Not • The HA Did Not Timely Conduct Timely Conduct the Find ings and the Findings and Penalty Penalty Conference Conference South Statewide • The HA Timely • The HA Timely Conducted the Conducted the Findings and Findings and Penalty Penalty Conference Conference • The HA Did Not • The HA Did Not Timely Conduct Timely Conduct the Find ings and the Find ings and Penalty Penalty Conference Conference 8 Department Operations Manual, Section 33030.13. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 15 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA If the hiring authority sustains misconduct allegations, he or she must then determine if disciplinary action is appropriate and the penalty. The disciplinary matrix provides guidelines for determining the appropriate penalty after evaluating whether any factors in mitigation or aggravation apply. The department attorney provides legal advice to the hiring authority on application of the disciplinary matrix to sustained allegations. The OIG monitors the process and provides feedback as appropriate. In cases where misconduct is identified, the disposition is reported in Appendix B (which contains Disciplinary Phase cases) or Appendix A (which contains both Pre-Disciplinary and Disciplinary Phase cases). Department attorneys properly advised hiring authorities on legal issues related to disciplinary actions in 95 percent of the cases (Chart 9). The department attorney is responsible for providing legal advice to the hiring authority regarding sufficiency of the evidence supporting disciplinary findings. If the hiring authority sustains allegations, the department attorney is also responsible for drafting the disciplinary action, observing the Skelly hearing, drafting settlement agreements, and preparing for and representing the department at proceedings before the State Personnel Board and superior court. The OIG monitors the performance of the department attorneys. The OIG works with the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team on a daily basis and, over time, has collaboratively established expectations for consultation9 If the OIG or the department attorney believes the hiring authority is making an unreasonable decision about sustaining allegations or the level of discipline, a higher level of review may be sought pursuant to the department's policies and procedures during the Pre-Disciplinary or Disciplinary Phase or both. In the higher-level review, the hiring authority's supervisor, the department attorney's supervisor, and the OIG supervisor consult regarding the hiring authority's determinations. If an unreasonable decision is still being contemplated, the department attorney's supervisor or the OIG supervisor may seek an even higher level of review. Higher levels of review are a critical part of the Pre-Disciplinary and Disciplinary processes, but are designed to be used sparingly. The involved parties reserve higher levels of review for significant cases where differences in opinion cannot be resolved at the initial level. Out of the 210 cases the OIG is reporting for the January through June 2017 period, there were 8 cases where a higher level of review was sought. The OIG requested a higher level of review in six of those cases. In the cases where the OIG sought a higher level of review, three were ultimately decided consistent with the OIG's position. The cases where the OIG sought a higher level of review were all matters where the hiring authority's decision was a significant departure from policy, as the examples illustrate. In one case, the Office of Internal Affairs rejected the OIG recommendation for a full investigation of 9 The Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT) is a group of attorneys from the CDCR's Office of Legal Affairs responsible for litigating disciplinary actions against department employees. The EAPT does not litigate all disciplinary cases involving department employees. Generally, higher-level or more serious cases are assigned or "designated" to be litigated by EAPT, while employee relations officers (generally non-attorneys) litigate the less-serious employee discipline cases. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 16 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA an officer's alleged use of unreasonable force and approved disciplinary action without an investigation. At the findings and penalty conference, the hiring authority found the evidence sufficient to make a finding without an investigation. The OIG disagreed and raised the issue to the hiring authority's supervisor. The hiring authority's supervisor agreed with the OIG, and the department conducted a full investigation into the alleged use of unreasonable force. Another hiring authority intended to impose corrective action on a captain who permitted force to be used on an inmate who was unable to understand and comply with orders. The OIG objected because the captain's departure from policy was significant and exposed the department to civil liability. The hiring authority's supervisor agreed and ordered imposition of disciplinary action. One of the factors in the hiring authority's decision to impose corrective action instead of disciplinary action was poor advice from the department attorney. In a third case, an officer pushed and then slapped his wife in front of their 11-year-old daughter. After a Skelly hearing, the hiring authority decided to reduce the penalty from a salary reduction to a letter of reprimand. The OIG and the department attorney disagreed and raised the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor because the proposed penalty was less than the minimum required by policy for this type of serious misconduct. The hiring authority's supervisor agreed with the OIG and department attorney and maintained the original penalty. In yet another case, an officer pointed a handgun at a store's loss prevention officer after the loss prevention officer escorted an unrelated suspect to a private office in the store. The officer later claimed he thought the loss prevention officer threatened the suspect with a weapon. The department attorney incorrectly advised the hiring authority the allegation could not be sustained because the officer acted reasonably in light of the training provided to the officer. The hiring authority agreed. The OIG elevated the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. The department attorney's supervisor incorrectly advised the hiring authority's supervisor the officer's action was reasonable. The hiring authority's supervisor did not sustain the allegation. Because of delays by the Office of Internal Affairs, the hiring authority, and the hiring authority's supervisor, the impending deadline for taking disciplinary action foreclosed seeking a higher level of review. In a fifth case, an officer brought a mobile phone into an institution and was dishonest about having done so. The hiring authority sustained the allegations, but then imposed a salary reduction as the penalty when the presumptive penalty for dishonesty is dismissal unless there are significant mitigating factors. The OIG sought a higher level of review because the officer's misconduct was intentional and dishonesty is a character trait inconsistent with a peace officer's duties and responsibilities. The hiring authority's supervisor did not sustain the dishonesty allegation, and the penalty remained a salary reduction instead of dismissal. The OIG and the department attorney sought a higher level of review. At the next level, a deputy director agreed the officer was dishonest, but the penalty remained a salary reduction. In the last case, a parole agent allegedly accessed a confidential law enforcement database for personal reasons and the hiring authority imposed a salary reduction. During settlement negotiations, the hiring authority declared an intention to reduce the penalty to a letter of reprimand. The OIG sought a higher level of review because there was no change in SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 17 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA circumstances to justify a settlement with a reduced penalty. The hiring authority's supervisor decided to offer a reduced penalty despite no change in circumstances. The parole agent rejected the settlement offer. After a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the disciplinary action. NEED FOR DEPARTMENT ATTORNEYS TO IMPROVE THEIR PERFORMANCE IN DISCIPLINARY CASES The OIG also monitors and assesses the performance of department attorneys assigned to monitored cases. The OIG analyzed the performance of department attorneys in critical functions for the cases monitored by the OIG and closed during the January through June 2017 reporting period. The need for improvement in case analysis by department attorneys continues. The department attorney is required to assess the deadline for taking disciplinary action and whether tolling applies, the incident date, and the date the alleged misconduct was discovered, and make a timely entry into the department's case management system documenting these dates.10 Timely and accurate assessment of these critical dates is crucial to the investigation process. The department may be precluded from taking disciplinary action if the deadline for taking disciplinary action is not accurately assessed. The following chart shows the results of the department attorneys' assessment of critical dates for the January through June 2017 period. In the July through December 2016 reporting period, department attorneys timely and accurately assessed critical dates in 77 percent of the cases. In the January through June 2017 reporting period, timely and accurate assessment of critical dates decreased to 67 percent. In addition, the department attorneys neglected to account for a change in the deadlines for taking disciplinary action in 29 percent of cases where the deadline changed. The OIG is reporting 132 cases where the department assigned an attorney during the Disciplinary Phase. The OIG reviewed critical aspects of department attorney performance necessary to effectively impose appropriate discipline, including whether the department attorney drafted a sufficient disciplinary action that complied with legal requirements and the requirements sets forth in the department operations manual and whether the department attorney properly advised the hiring authority regarding investigative and disciplinary determinations. Department advocates, including department attorneys and employee relations officers, drafted sufficient disciplinary actions in 76 percent of reported cases. 10 Department Operations Manual, Section 33030.12. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 18 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart 9: Department Attorney Performance Timely Assessessment of Relevant Determine Deadline for Taking Dates Disciplinary Action Changed • Yes • No Timely Feedback Regarding Office Provide Proper Advice Regarding of Internal Affairs Report Investigative Findings Provide Proper Advice Regarding Department Advocate Properly Disciplinary Findings Drafted the Disciplinary Action • Yes SEJ1.1I-ANNuALREPORTVOLUMEI JANUARY-JUNE2017 PAGE19 0FF1CE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case Sufficiency Ratings The OIG assesses each case to determine whether the department complied with its policies as well as best practices in conducting the investigation and addressing the allegations. The OIG and the department work collaboratively to improve the internal investigation and employee discipline processes. An insufficient procedural rating reflects deficiencies with potential for creating an adverse outcome but does not necessarily mean there was an adverse outcome. However, as addressed previously, delayed investigations always have potential adverse consequences, some of which are intangible. When a failure to follow a policy or procedure causes harm to the process and adversely affects the outcome, the OIG rates the matter as substantively insufficient. In the rating period for January through June 2017, the department's substantive ratings for both the Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase and the Disciplinary Phase improved. The department's compliance with process sharply decreased in the Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase, but improved its compliance with process during the Disciplinary Phase. Since the reporting period of January through June 2014, the OIG, at the department's request, began assessing and reporting procedural and substantive performance separately. Differentiating the assessments provides overall fairness to department employees who performed well, despite deficiencies elsewhere in the process. It also provides more focused feedback helping the department address areas where improvement is needed. Pursuant to statute, the OIG assesses the substance or quality of the investigation based on its expert opinion and where departure from procedure results in quantifiable harm. The OIG assesses the process primarily on the department's adherence to its own policy. The OIG continues to assess process deficiencies regardless of outcome or the specific entity responsible within the department. Minor deficiencies typically do not result in an insufficient rating. There are additional factors within the ratings to be noted. The Pre-Disciplinary Phase assesses the hiring authority, the Office oflnternal Affairs' Central Intake Panel, department attorney (if the case is designated), and the Office oflnternal Affairs' special agents who conduct the investigations. The Disciplinary Phase assesses the hiring authority and, when designated, the department attorney. Any or all of these entities may be responsible for a sufficient or insufficient rating. The individual assessments in the appendices outline specific reasons for each insufficient case rating for use by the department and transparency to the public. The OIG's role is to assess the department as a whole. Charts lOA through !OF display the OIG's assessments by region for the Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase and include procedural and substantive ratings.11 The first chart for each region shows the trend since the July through December 2015 reporting period. The second chart for each region shows the comparison of procedural and substantive assessments from the January through June 2016 reporting period through the current reporting period of January 11 A "Pre-Disciplinary Phase" takes place in cases involving administrative allegations. In criminal cases, the same phase is called the "Investigative Phase." SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 20 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA through June 2017. Charts llA through llF displays the OIG's assessment by region for the Disciplinary Phase and contain the same two types of charts for each region. Chart 12 displays the overall statewide sufficiency procedural and substantive assessments for the Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase for this reporting period of January through June 2017 compared to the last two reporting periods of January through June 2016 and July through December 2016. Of the 145 cases in which the OIG is assessing the Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phases during the January through June 2017 period, 24 percent were assessed procedurally sufficient and 82 percent were assessed substantively sufficient, compared to 39 percent and 61 percent, respectively, during the July through December 2016 reporting period. The insufficiencies were due to a combination of factors, ranging from untimely hiring authority referrals to the Office of Internal Affairs, hiring authority delays in conducting findings and penalty conferences, and the department attorney delaying review of investigative reports or failing to timely and accurately assess the time limit for taking disciplinary action. The Office of Internal Affairs delayed completion of investigations was not considered in assessing the procedural or substantive sufficiency of these cases. Chart 13 displays the overall statewide Disciplinary Phase procedural and substantive assessments for January through June 2017 compared to January through June 2016 and July through December 2016. Of the 132 cases in which the OIG is assessing the Disciplinary Phase during the January through June 2017 period, 67 percent were procedurally sufficient and 89 percent were substantively sufficient. In the last reporting period of July through December 2016, 56 percent were procedurally sufficient and 70 percent substantively sufficient. While some of these insufficiencies can be attributed to untimely disciplinary findings conferences, others were due to the hiring authorities' inappropriate disciplinary decisions, poor legal advice from department attorneys, or settlements entered without a change in circumstances. Again, it is a combination of factors that contribute to the insufficiencies. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 21 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart 10: Department Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Ratings by Region Chart lOA North Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase 100% .. 90% .......... 80% ~ 70% __,.,- - 60% 50% 40% ...... 30% -....- 20% ~ 10% 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart lOB North Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Rating 84% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 22 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA toe Chart Central Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase 100% 90% 80% 70% ........... 60% - ..,- ~ 50% --..-.. ..........._ 40% ..... 30% .... ............... 20% -........... 10% ~ 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart 10D Central Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Rating 67% 34% 8% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 23 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart lOE South Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase 100% ....... 90% .. - ~ 80% - ~ 70% 60% - ------ .... 50% 40% .... .... 30% ..... 20% 10% 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart lOF South Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Rating 94% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 24 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart 11: Department Disciplinary Phase Su(ficiencv Ratings hv Region Chart 11A North Disciplinary Phase 100% ...,....... - -- 90% - - _.. .-- 80% .... ~ 70% ~ ~ 60% ......... 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart 11B North Disciplinary Phase Sufficiency Rating 89% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 25 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart llC Central Disciplinary Phase 100% 90% ~ 80% / .... 70% / 60% ----- ~ / 50% .../' ~ 40% ..........,- ..... 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart llD Central Disciplinary Phase Sufficiency Rating 88% 64% 42% 39% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 26 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart llE South Disciplinary Phase 100% -- 90% 80% 70% -- ""!"'" 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Jul-Dec 2015 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 ~Procedural - Substantive Chart llF South Disciplinary Phase Sufficiency Rating 91% 88% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 27 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Chart 12: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Pre-Disciplinary and Investigative Phase Sufficiency Rating 82% 29% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jul-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Chart 13: Department Overall Case Sufficiency Ratings Disciplinary Phase Disciplinary Phase Sufficiency Rating 89% Procedural Procedural Procedural Substantive Substantive Substantive Jan-Jun 2016 Jui-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 Jan-Jun 2016 Jui-Dec 2016 Jan-Jun 2017 The preceding charts document changes over reporting periods in the sufficiency of the department's actions in response to potential misconduct by its employees. The OIG monitors numerous factors and assesses the department's performance as to each. The factors assess timeliness and quality. The OIG will work with the department going forward to identify specific causes for the deficient performance and identify appropriate remedies. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 28 OFFICE OF TilE IN SPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Volume I Conclusion The OIG provides ongoing oversight and transparency of CDCR adherence to the reforms the Madrid federal court mandated for internal investigations and the employee discipline process. In this reporting period of January through June 2017, the department is to be applauded for improving its ratings for its substantive performance during the Pre-Disciplinary Phase and its substantive and procedural performance during the Disciplinary Phase. There remains room for improvement in the department's procedural ratings during the Pre-Disciplinary Phase. Additionally, in this reporting period, the OIG is reporting a significant decrease in timely referrals by hiring authorities of requests for investigations to the Office oflnternal Affairs. The OIG offers two recommendations for the department to consider in this report. The first involves the continuing efforts of the department to complete its investigations in a timelier manner, as defined by industry standards. The second is a recommendation regarding the need for the department to modify its policies and procedures regarding cell entries to prevent the loss and destruction of evidence. As noted previously, delayed investigations harm the department by unnecessarily demoralizing employees ultimately cleared of wrongdoing. These employees are often deprived of transfer or promotional opportunities due to pending investigations that sometimes languish for months. Delays also adversely affect the ability of hiring authorities to make accurate findings and take appropriate action because the memories of those involved degrade over time and other evidence can be lost. Furthermore, there may be liability incurred and ensuing harm if delay in investigating allows additional misconduct to occur. A thorough, fair, and timely investigation benefits everyone involved in the process. The department has acknowledged the importance of timely investigations, but nevertheless has hesitated in adopting a written policy with clear completion goals for investigations. The OIG continues to provide transparency and critical information to the public and to assist the department in following its policies and procedures. The OIG will also continue to recommend the department develop policies and procedures that ensure a fair, timely, and thorough internal investigation and disciplinary process. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 29 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Volume I Recommendations The OIG recommends the department implement the following recommendations from Volume I of this Semi-Annual Report, January through June 2017: Recommendation 1.1: The OIG, once again, renews its recommendation that the department implement a policy change requiring investigations be completed within six months of assignment. Recommendation 1.2: The OIG recommends that the department develop guidelines and exceptions to departmental cell entry policies and procedures for Office oflnternal Affairs special agents conducting criminal investigations to prevent the loss and destruction of evidence. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 30 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Volume I Recommendations from Prior Reporting Periods The OIG recommended the department implement the following recommendations from Volume I of the Semi Annual Report, July through December 2016: Recommendation 1.1: The OIG renews its recommendation that the department implement a policy change requiring investigations be completed within six months of assignment. CDCR Response: Partially Implemented The department recognizes the sooner investigations are completed the better served are complainants, hiring authorities, employees, and the public. The department has implemented process changes designed to decrease the number of months it takes to complete an investigation. These changes include training departmental staff regarding complaint allegation inquiries and working with stakeholders to streamline the report writing process. Recommendation 1.2: The OIG recommends the department provide its attorneys refresher training regarding how to properly assess the deadline for taking disciplinary action and the requirements for documenting these assessments in the department's case management system. CDCR Response: Pending The Office of Legal Affairs is developing training for attorneys on determining an accurate deadline to take disciplinary action, identifying factors that change the time limit, and policy requirements for documenting these assessments. The anticipated completion date is September 2017. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 31 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The OIG recommended the department implement the following recommendations from Volume I of the Semi-Annual Report, July through December 2015: Recommendation 1.1: The OIG recommends that the department implement a policy change requiring that investigations be completed within six months of assignment. CDCR Response: Partially Implemented The department recognizes the sooner investigations are completed the better served are complainants, hiring authorities, employees, and the public. The department has implemented process changes designed to decrease the number of months it takes to complete an investigation. These changes include training departmental staff regarding complaint allegation inquiries and working with stakeholders to streamline the report writing process. Recommendation 1.2: The OIG recommends that the department find a means to solve the staffing problem or consider hiring non-sworn staff to conduct administrative investigations. CDCR Response: Substantially Implemented The department, as of August 18, 20 17, has a vacancy rate of 4. 5 percent with seven encumbered special agent positions. The encumbered positions are those in which candidates are completing the background investigation process. The department continues to review the feasibility of reclassifying certain positions. Recommendation 1.5: The OIG recommends that the Office of Internal Affairs modify the allegations in its case management system to mirror those in the CDCR Employee Disciplinary Matrix (Department Operations Manual, Section 33030.19). CDCR Response: Pending The department reports that it continues to work toward developing the next generation of the case management system. The department is reviewing recommended changes proposed by stakeholders, hiring authorities, and staff, and will consider those recommendations as it develops a new case management system. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 32 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Appendices Appendix A contains the assessments for 129 Combined Phase cases monitored Page 34 during this reporting period, listed by geographical region. Appendix B contains the assessments for 65 Disciplinary Phase cases monitored Page 149 during the reporting period, listed by geographical region. Appendix C contains the assessments of 16 Investigative Phase cases monitored Page 200 during the reporting period, listed by geographical region. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VoLUME I JANUARY-JUNE 2017 PAGE 33 OFFICE OF TilE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Appendix A 129 Combined Phase Cases Central Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty litnal Penalty 2000-01-01 16-0001884-IR 1. DiBbone~~ty 1. Not Summed No Penalty Impoaed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sullllllary In 2000 and again in 2005, an aaaociate warden allegedly sexually abused a minor. On JUlie 27, 2016, the aaaociate warden was allegedly dishonest to outside law enforcement n:guding the conduct. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplin81y procei!S because the Office ofintemal Affilin did not make an appropriate initial detennination, and the depsrtmcnt attorney did not timely or correctly assei!S the deadline for talring diliciplinuy action. The department attorney also did not adequately Coopenile with the special agent, hiring authority, or the OIG and refused to provide legal advice to the special agent and the hiring authority. Pnleedural Ratin1 Subltantlve Ratin1 Inaufficient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Did the Olllee of In•m at AffUn make an appropriate Initial determlnatlnn regarding the eue? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs inappropria/4/y 1fljused to open an administrative investigation despite the 11ud to iiiWView the alleg«< victim to daermine whaher allegatio11S should be susmin«<. In_, o Within 11 ealendar day1, did the department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer eorreetly a~ea the deadline for tU!ng dbelpllnary aetlnn and make an entry the eue manage~M~~t ~Y~tem confirming the dm of the rep.-d Incident, the dm of dbeovery, the deadline for tU!ng dbelpllnary aetlnn, and any eueptlon1 m the deadline kncnm at the time? Th4 departmeflt attorney was assign«/ September 15, 2016, but did riOt make an entry in the case ma11agement system 1flgrurling the deadline for miring disciplinary action ulltil November 6, 2016, 52 days after assignment. hi addition, the department attorney incomJCtly asst!3S«< the deadline for miring disciplinary action as .lutJe 26, 2017, when the deadline was actually fuM 9, 2017. o Within 11 ealendar day• following receipt of the lnveltfcatlve report, did the department U.roey review the report and provide appropriate nbltantive feedback addrellling the thoronghna1 and cl.artty oft he report? Th4 Offic4 ofh ltemal Affairs provided the draft rep011 to the departmeflt attorney 011 January 9, 2017, but the department attorney did riOt provide fe«<bad: umil February 6, 2017, 28 days thereafter. o Did the department attorney provide -tJproprla•Iegai connltatloo to the HA regarding the nfficlency of the lnve~tigatlon and lnveltigatlve flndlnp? Th4 departmeflt attorney 1fljus«< to provide her writte11 advice to the hiring authority prim to the disciplinary jindinga corifmmce despite a 1flquestfor such advice. o Did the ~peclal agent and department attorney coopera• and provide rul-tlme connltatloa with each otller throughout the pre-illlclpllnary phue? Th4 departmeflt attorney was riOt p1flpar«ijor the itlitial case COIIference with the spect41 agent and refos«< to provide legtzl advice to the special agetlt during the investigatio11. o Did the department attorney coopera• with and provide cootiou1 real-time connltatloo with the OIG thronghont the pre-illlclpllnary phue? Th4 departmeflt attorney 1fljus«< to provide a written initial case evaluation or her advice 1flgrurling the invutigativejindinga to the OIG. o Did the department condnct the pre-dbelpllnary/lnveltfcatlve phue with dne diligence? Th4 delays a1fl address«/ in p..Wr questio11S. Case Dbpositlon The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 34 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2010-06~1 16-0002171-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. Insubordination 2. Sustained 3. Neglect ofD uty 3. Sustained 4. Over-Familiarity 4. Not Sualained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry Between June 1, 2010, and June 1, 2013, anofficerallegecDyengagedinaexual misconduct with an inmate. Betw\lenJanuuy22, 2013, and February 14, 2017, the officerallegecDyengagedin sexual misconduct with a second inmate and provided the inmate with jewelry, underprmcnts, and perfume. Between October 1, 2016, and Novcmber28, 2016, the officer allegecDy engaged in repealed religioua discussions with inmates fur sevcQl holllll and fiilled to oomply with a chief deputy wuden's Older to stop. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKledures governing the pre-disciplinuy process because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Af!ilirs. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of Internal Affaln within 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alkg«J mi3conducl on May 1, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the OffiCe of Internal Affairs until NoW!IIIber 30, 2016, seven months ofw the date of discovery. • Did tile departmeut eoDduet tile pre-dixlplilluy/IDvelllgative phue w1t11 due diligence? 1114 tklay is addressed in a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltlon Tbe hiring authority sustained all allegatiOIIS, except that the officer was overly fiuniliar with the first inmate, and detennined a 44-womng-ilay suspension was the appropriate penalty. Tbe OIG concwred. However, the officer ~igned bef= diaciplinuy action could be imposed. Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's official pCillonnel file indicating be resigned pending diacipliDIIIY action. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and proced=s governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 35 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Ftndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2014-04-10 16-0001764-IR 1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sualllined Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On Apri110, 2014, a se..,ant allesedly fitiled to tborougltly complete an inmate boWling nwiew. On February 12, 2016, a 1m: captain allesedlypennitted an inmate M:fighter to leave groundli in tbe back ofa n ambulance, a gate officer allesedJy ruled to verify and identify each pCJSon in the ambui811Ce before it left grounds, and a second se'llcant allesedJy improperly trained the gate officer to not inBpect ambui811Ces leaving groundli. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process because tbe hiring autbority did not timely refer tbe matter to the Office ofI nternal Affails or timely conduct tbe findings conference, the Office of Internal Affails did not make an appropriate initW decision, and tbe department attorney did not timely assess the deadline fur taking disciplinary action or provide appropriate lepl advice to tbe hiring authority. Additions11y, the deadline fur taking disciplinary action fur the firstsC!JCant expired, resulting in the hiring autbority issuing a letter ofi nstnwtion ratber than disciplinary action. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Insufficient Insuffieient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on April10, lOU, but the hiring authority did not rr;fer the matter to the Offke ofI nternal Affairs until May 31, 2016, more than two y(!J(ITs afw the date of di.scovaty. • Did tile Offiee of lutem al Aft't in DUke m appropriate illilial determillatiou regudillg tile cue? 1'114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs inappropriately tkcided not to add a third sergeant as a subject oft he inW!Stigation despite evidena the sergeant also improperly trained of.fiars how to inspect ambulances kaving grounds. o Wltllln 11 ealeDdar day1, did tile departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offker correctly--tile deadlille for tUIDg dlxlpliDary aetiDD aDd DUke m eutry IIIIo tile cue llllUiage_..t ll)'ltem couflrmiDg the date of the reported illeldeut, tile date of dlxovery, tile deadlille for tUIDg dlxlpliDary aetiDD, md my esceptioDI to the deadlille lmcnm at tile time? 1'114 tkpartment attomey matk an entry into the case managemant system. However, she merely stated thot she assessed the date of the incidant, discovety date, and the deadlinefOI' taking disciplinaty action without indicating the actual dates. • Did tile deadlille for taldllg dbciplillary actiou or fll.iDg charge• aplre before tile illvatlgatlon wu completed? 1'114 tkadline to toke disciplinaty action against the first sergeant was April1 0, 2015, but the hiring autharity did not n(er the matter to the Off= oflnternal Affairs until May 31, 2016. • Did tile HA timely CODIIllt wltll tile OIG aDd departmnt attorney {If applleablc), regardillg the IDIIldcDey of the illvatigatlou aDd the illvatfcatlve filldillp? 1'114 Of!ic4 oflntemal Affairs rdu1114d the case to the hiring authority on June 29, 2016. H~ the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and the tkpartment attomey reganling the sufficiency oft he evidetla and the findings until August 24, 2016, 56 days thereafter. o Did tile departmeut attorney provide appropriate legal CODIDitatlon to the HA regardillg the IDIIldcDey of the illvatlgatlou aDd illveltlgatlve filldillp? 1'114 tkpartment attomey inappropriately advised that disciplinaty action should be tolrm against a sergeant despit4 the deadline to toke disciplinary action bQITing such action. • Did tile departmeut coDd11et tile pre-dixlpliD.ary/IDveltlgative phue 1ritll d11e dJUceuee? 1'114 tklays arr; addressed in p..Wr questioiiS. Case Dlspotldon Tbe hiring autbority sualained the allegations and imposed U8ining ratber than disciplinary action against tbe first se..,ant because tbe deadline fur taking disciplinary action expired, aS percent slluy reduction fur 12 montba against tbe second 5e'1!cant, aS pen:ent salary reduction fur 12 months against the officer, and aS percent salary reductiou for 12 mouths against tbe tm: captain. Tbe OIG conewred with tbe hiring authority's detemlinations. After a Skelly bearing, the hiring authority discovered the policies and procedures for the 1m: captain MOre vague and the 1m: captain had not been previously disciplined fur prior similar conduct. Due to this mitigating information, tbe hiring autbority withdrew the disciplinary actiou and issued a letter of instruction. Tbe OIG conewred based on tbe lileton learned at tbe Skelly bearing. Tbe second 5e'1!cantand the officer filed appeals with tbe State PCJSonnel Boanl. Prior to the State Penonncl Board proceedings, tbe department entered into settlement agreements with the second 5e'1!cantand officer. The hiring autbority reduced the second SC!JCanl's penslty to aS percent salary reduction fur three montba because the se'llcant appeared confuBed about policies reguding tbe departure of an ambulance. The OIG did not ooncur but did not seek a higber lewI of review because tbe reduced penslty was within depsrtmentsl guidelines. The hiring authority reduced the officer's penslty to a letter ofi nstruction because sbe reasonably relied on tbe SCIJCant'S instnwtions, and the OIG ooncurred fur tbe same reason. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing tbe disciplinary process because the hiring autbority did not conduct the disciplinary findings confcnmce in a timely IIIIIDDCI', and the disciplinary actions and settlements did not comply with policy. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 36 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating I Inauflicient Sufficient Assessment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conmlt with the OIG uut the departmeut attorney (If appHcable) regardlllg dlxlpliDary detenniDatiDu prior to maldllg a filial dect.lOD? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case to the hiring authority em June 29, 2016. However; tlr4 hiring authority did notc0113Ult with the OIG and the department attorney regarding the disciplinary detentJinaticns UlltU August 24, 201 (), 56 daJ13 thereafter. o Wu the draft dUclpliDuy action provided tn the OIG for review appropriately drafted u deKribed Ill the DOM? Th4 draft disciplinary actiom cited incomplete legal authority governing peace officu ccmjidelltiality,failed to rr;jertJ~~Ce all relewmt documents, and did nat advise the sugeants and officers of t/Wr right to respond to an Ullitn10lv«< mtlllaget: o Wu the dlsclplllluy action Nrved on the ~abject (1) appropriately dnfted u dacribed Ill the DOM? Th4jinal disciplinary actions cited incompkte legal authority governing peace officu ccmjidelltiolity and did not advise tlr4 SergtJQnts and ojJic4rs of their right to rt!3pcmd to an unini!Olved manager. o H there 'lfU a Httlement agree:meut, 'lfU the Httle:meut CODiilteDt with the DOM factnn? Th4 department entered a settlement agreement with tlr4 seccmd sergeant dt!3pite no new evidence, flaws, or rise identijkd to support tlr4 settl- o H the penalty wu -dlfled by department action or a Httle:meut agreemeut, did OIG CODcnr with the modlfleatllln? Th4 OIG did nat concur with tlr4 settlement because tlr4 hiring authority did nat identify any new evidence, flaws, or rise to justify a modification. o Wu the dilclplllluy phue CODdncted with dne dntgence by the department? Th4 delay is addre3sed in a p..Wr question. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2014-{18-31 17-0022644-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Not Suatlined No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. Contrablllld 2. Not Suatlined Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Sulllllllry Between Ausust31, 2014, and Apri119, 2017, an officer allegedly inappropriately touched and exchanged penonal notes with an inmate. The officer a1ao allegedly broupt a mobile phone, tobaooo, and underwear into the institution for the inmate. Pre-disciplinary Asses1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-dilciplirully process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office oflntemal Aflilira. Pnlcedural Rating Subttantive Rating Inauflicient Sufticiellt Asses1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred tn the Office of Internal Affaln withiD 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dileovery? Th4 department learned of the alleged misconduct on June 23, 201 (), but the hiring authority did not rr;fer the matter to the Office ofh ltemal Affairs until April 25, 2017, ten months thereafter. o Did the departmeut eoDdnct the pre-dilelpliDary/IDveltlgative pha~e with dne dntgence? Th4 delay is addre3s«< in a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority round iDaufticient evidence to suatlin the alleptiona. The OIG concurn:d. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 37 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015.@-30 17-0022337-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Contrablllld 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary Between March 30, 2015, 8lld March 7, 2017, an officer allegedly engaaed in selW&l misooncluct with an inmate 8lld introduced memoty cards, tobacco, 8lld other contlaband into the institution. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly proceaa bllCIIuae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilirs, 8lld the department attorney did not acclll8tely assess the deadline for taking disciplinaly action. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on June 6, 2016, but the hiring autlrority did not rqer the matter w the OffiCe of Internal Affair3 until March U, 2017, more than nine months after the date ofd i3covery. o Wltllln 11 calendar day1, did tile departmot attorney or employee relatlou offleer eorreetly Ulal tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioo and make an entry illto tile eue management l)'ltem confinniDg the date of the repor1ed IDcldent, tile date of d!K:overy, tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioo, and any euept1Dn1 to the deadline knOWD at tile time? 1114 tkpartment attorney incorrectly asst!3sed the tJeadJjnefor talring disciplinary action as June 7, 2017, when the deadline was actually June 6, 2017. o Did tile department eond11ct tile pre-dixlpllnary/lnveltlgative phue wltll d..e dJUcence? 1114 tklay is addrt!3sed in a p..Wr question. Case Dlap01ltlon The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concumxl with the hiring authority's determination. However, the officer resigned before the hiring authority conducted the investigative findings conft:rence. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officet's official personnel file indicating he resigned under unfkvon~ble cin:umstances. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 38 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-10-21 16-0001752-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Diacrimination!Harusment 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Investigation Incident Summary On October 21, 2015, an UIIOCiate wuden allegedly told an African-American captain abe wu tbe "black eye" oftbe institution, tbe department typically does not promote people like her, and due ro tbe captain's age, she would net be promoted any further. On November 20, 2015, tbe UIIOCiate wuden allegedly included ftllae statements in tbe captain's probationary evaluation. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKledurea governing tbe pre-diaciplinuy process because the hiring authority did net timely refer the matter tc tbe Office of Internal Af!ilirs or timely condud tbe investigative findings conference. The department attorney did not provide appropriate feedbllck regarding the investigative report or adequately cooperate with the OIG. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating lnallffic:ient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of IDternal Affidrl wlthiD 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d of the alleged misconduct on Man:h 11, 1016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the malter to the Offic4 oflntemal Affairs until May 17, 1016, 67 days after the date of discovery. • WlthiD 11 ealcndar day• following reedptof the lnveltlgatlve report, did the department attorney review die report and provide appropriate obltantive feedbael< addrealng die dloroughna1 and clarity oft he report? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney did 1IOl advise the specja/ agem oft he need to interview an additional witness when mviewillg the draft rt!p(}rt. o Did die depam.nt attorney provide written confirmation 11Uillllarlzing all critical dbc1111ton1 about die Invatigatlve report to the 1pec:W agent wl1h a copy to die OIG? Tlr4!kparlltletltattomeyprovidedfeedbaclr:to the special agentwillloutprovidinga copy to the OIG. • Wu die Inveltlgatlve draft report provided to die OIG for review dlorough and approprlaldy drafted? Tlr4 draft iiiV«1tigative rt!/)011 setf orth an excessive number ofi nvestigator 110les illterpmillg witness statements. • Did die HA tln.ly C0111Plt wldl die OIG and depam.ut attorney (If appltcable), regarding the officleocy of the lnvatigation and the lnvatigatlve flndlnp? Tlr4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs comp/41ed its iiiV«1tigation and rqerred the malter to the hiring authority on January 10, 1017. However, the hiring authority did not consult willl the OIG and the department attorney 1flgardillg the sufficiency oft he iiiV«1tigation and the illvestigativejilldillgs until February 18, 1017, 39 days the1flajter. o Did die depam.ut conduct die pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue wl1h due diligence? Tlr4 lklays a1fl addressed ill p..Wr questio113. Case Dbposltion Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence tc sustain the allegations. The OIG ronllUIICd. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 39 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegatlont Flndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-11~1 16-0001071-IR L Dishonesty LSuatained Diamiaaal ResipWion in lieu ofTenninalion 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Suatained 3. Confidential Infurmation 3. Suatained 4. NesJect ofD uty 4. Suatained 5. MiBuse of State Equipment or Property 5. Suatained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident SullliUry Between November 1, 2015, and February 12, 2016, an officer allesedly uaed State oomputen to access confidential inmate infonnation and provide it to hia sirlfriend who wu previously married to the inmate, and wu &llesedly overly fiu:niliar with the inmate's fiu:nily and fiiends. On Ausuat 23, 2016, and AIIIWit 31, 2017, the officer wu allesedly dishonest durins his interviews with the Office ofI nternal Affilinl. Pre-dlsdpllnary Anestment The department did not comply with procedures sovernins the prc-disciplin81y process because the department attorney did not adequately assess the deadline for talrins disciplinary action, timely contact the special apt and the OIG, or advise the hirins authority to add a dishonesty alleption. The special qent did not adequately prepan: fur the invcstiption or thoroupiy interview the officer. Subttantlve Rating Sufficient Anessment Questions o Within 11 caieDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar cornctly --the de..nine for tHing dlxlpllury actioD and make Ul entry iDlo the cue management ll)'ltem conflnniDg the date of the rep.-! IDcldent, the date of dlxovery, the de..nine for tHing dlxlpllury actilm, ud uy escept1Do11D the dead!IDe lmcnm at the time? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney was assign«/ 011 April13, 2016, but did 1101 mak6 an entry into tlr4 case management system regarding the tkadlinefor taking disciplinary action Ulllil May U, 2016, 41 days after assignment. In addition, the department attorney incorrectly asst/33«1 tlr4 dale ofd iscovery as February 8, 2016, when it was actually February 7, 2016. o No later thUlll calendar day1 following Ullgnmentofthe cue, did the department atlomey contact the Uligned ~peclalageut ud the moniiDrto diiCIUII the elementl of a thorough IDvertigatiDu of the alleged milc onduct? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney was assign«/ 011 April13, 2016, but did 1101 contact the special agent or tlr4 OIG until May U, 2016, 41 days filter. o Did the ~pedal ageut adequately prepare for all &~pectl of the IDve~tlgatlou? Th4 special agent was1101familiar with nor did she obtoin tlr4 department's information security awaren«!!s policiu and mandatory training prior to tlr4 of.fiar's interviews. o Were all of the iDtervlem thoro11gh and appropriately coDd11cted? Th4 special agent did not qu«1ti011 the o.ff1C6 about his lr11owl«<ge, trajning. or compliance with tlr4 tkpartmenl's information security awall!llt/33 polici4s. o Wu the IDvertigatiDD thor011gh aod appropriately coDdDCted? Th4 special agent did not obtoin tlr4 department's information security awaren«!!s polici4s and training until after conducting interviews. o Did the departmeut attoroey proYide -tJpnprlate legal CODIIllbtiDo to the HA regardiDg the nfficlency of the IDve~tlgatlou aod IDveltlgative fiDdiDp? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney did 1101 rti(X)mmend adding a dishot~Qty allegation until tlr4 hiring authority idnltifl«< the need to do so. o Did the departmeut coDd11ct the pre-dilclpllnary/IDvertlgative phue with dDe diligence? Th4 tklays are address«/ ill prior questions. Case Dltpotldon The hirins authority suallined the alleptiona and served the officer with a notice of diamiaa&l. The OIG concurred The officer filed an appeal with the State PeiSOIIDCl Boud. Prior to the State Pemonnel Boanl proceedinp, the department enteml into a settlement qmement wherein the officer reaisned in lieu of dismissal and qreed never to seek employment with the department, and the department aped to "'mow the disciplinuy action from his official pellKlnnel file after 18 months upon written "'quesl The OIG concurred with the settlement bccaw~e the ultimate soai of enaurins the officer did not work for the department wu achieved Dlsdpllnary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures sovernins the disciplinary process bccaw~e the department attorney prepared a deficient disciplinary action, urueasonably delayins service of the action, prepan:d a deficient pn>-heariDs settlement confcnmce statement, and lack:ed an Ulldenlfandins of a critical issue related to settlement. The department did not serve the disciplin81y action in accordance with policy. Substantive Ratln1 Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 40 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Anes1ment Questions • Wu die draft dlxlpi.IDuy action provided 1o the OIG for review approprlaldy drafted u dexribed In the DOM? Tlr4 draft disciplinary actio11 was excusivdy detail«<, listing 567 emmlmessages by date at1d time, delaytng service 69 days to a date 13 days before the deadlillefor talting disciplinary actio11. Tlr4 disciplillary actio11 did 11ot advise the ojf"JCel' ofh is right to respo11d to at1 Ullillvolwd mat~ager. a Wu die dbdpi.IDuy action ICI'Ved on the 111bject (1) approprlaldy drafted u dacrlbed In the DOM? Tlr4final disciplinary actioll was excusivdy detailed, listing 567 email messages by date at1d time, delaytng service 69 days to a date 13 days before the deadlillefor rafting disciplinary actio11. Tlr4 disciplillary actio11 did 11ot advise the ojf"JCel' ofh is right to respo11d to at1 Ullillvolwd mat~ager. • Did die dep.n-nt file a wrltkn pro-hearing 1eUiement conference ltatement wl1h the SPB containing all req111red Information lnelndlng. bllt not llmlted lo, a IIUIIIIIar)' of dipDiated faetl, time atimate, nmber of'lritlle-• wl1h a brief ltatementof apeeted teltimony, u.t of doeDmeDtary evlde~~ee, aod ltatement ofliglllfleaot mdentlary illlllCI? Tlr4 pre-/letJrillg settlemellt colljertlllce statemmt did 110t list a wtiness to testifY about the tlepanmmt's illformatiOII security awartJIItJSS policy alldfailed to delipate a computerj orellsics aamiller as at1 apert witlless. a Did die dep.n-nt'1 adweate who appeared at die pre-hearing lettiement eonfereDee have full familiarity 'lrilh die faetl aod illlllCI In the ea~e? Tlr4 deportlllellt attorney did 11ot Ullderstalld the impOI'tance of retaining the disciplinary actio11 ill the officer's official perso1111t11f'lle ifh e resip«<. a Wu die dbdpi.IDuy phue eondDeted 'lrilh du dDigCDee by die depan-nt? Tlr4 deportlllellt did 11ot serve the disciplinary actioll withi/130 days oft he decisloll to take discjplillary actio11. The hirillg authority collllucted the discjplillary f'rndill&r colljerence 011 November 17, 2016, but did 110tserve the discjplillary actio11 1111til Jat~uary 25, 2017, 69 days filter. Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-26 16-0001978-IR 1. Dishone.ty 1. Not Sualained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Diserimination!Harusment 2. Not Sualained 3. Diseowteous Treatment 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Administmive Inve.tigation Incident Summary Between November 26, 2015, and May 22, 2016, an officer allegedly directed IIICial and religious sllllll toward an inmlte. On July 13, 2016, the officer wu allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant wben he denied the inmlte'a allegations. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not refi:r the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilin in a timely lllliiiiiCr. Procedural Rating Substandw Rating IDaufficient Sufficient I Anestment Questions a Wu die matter referred 1o the Ofllee of Internal Affalrllridlln 45 ealendar da)'l of the date of dbcovery? Tlr4 deportlllelltlearned of the alkg«J mi3collduct 011 May 23, 2016, but the hiri11g authority did 110t refer the motter to the Office ofhlternal Affairs ulltil September 2, 2016, 102 days after the date of discovery. • Did die dep.n-nt eond11et die pro-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgative phue 'lrilh du dDigCDee? Tlr4 delay is address«/ ill a prior questio11. Case Dlapotldon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 41 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-12-{11 16-00002ro-IR 1. Medical l.Suslained Salary Reduction Retirement 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sualained 3. NeaJ.ect ofD uty 3. Not Sualained 4. NeaJ.ect ofD uty 4. Exonel8led Case Type: Administl8live Investiption Incident Summary On December 1, 2015, an officer allegedly fililed to discover a severely battered inmate while conducting an inmate counl Two seiJCU!ls, four officCill, and a nurse allegedly fililed to immediately initiate lift>-saving measures on the inmate. On December 22, 2015, the nunc allegedly submitted a false report reganling the incident and on Ausust 9, 2016, was allegedly dishonest during an interview with the Oflioe of Internal Aflitilll. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with prooedures soverning the pre-disciplinaly process because the department attorney did not provide timely feedback regarding the dnift investiptive "'Port and the hiring authority fur the nurse was not adequately p~ and neaJ.ected to conduct the investiptive :findinga conferenoe in a timely manner. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDaufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions • Within 11 ealcndar day• following reedptof the lnvelllgatlve report, did the department attorney review the report and provide appropriate obltantive feedbael< addrealng the thoroughneu and clarity oft he report? Tlr4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs provided the dtYJft inves#gative report to the deparrment attoi'My 011 September 1 6, 2016, bus the attorney did 1101 provide feedback Ulltil October 10, 2016, 24 days thereofter. a Did the HA timely COIIIP!t with the OIG and department attorney {If applleablc), regarding the olllclcocy of the inve~tigation and the inve~tlgatlve flndlnp? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkted its illves#gatto11 alld "'!ferret/ the matter to the llirillg authorities 011 October U, 2016. However, the mrillg authorityf or the mme did IIOl cOIISult with the OIG alld deparrment attoi'My regarding the sufficiDicy oft he illves#g0li011 a11d the inves#gativej indillgs Ulltil NoW!mber 1, 2016, 18 dt1J13 thereafter but was 110l prepar«J. Tlr4 coiiSUilattoll was compkted 011 November 8, 2016, 25 days after the Office ofhltemal Affairs completed the illvestigatkm. a If the HA con111ited with the OIG concerning the olllclcncy of the invelllgatlon and the invatigative flndinp, wu the HA adeqnately prepared? Whell the mrillg authorityf or the IIUrsejirst coiiSUited with the OIG a11d department attorney 011 November 1, 2016, she ~~eglected to review aU investigative materials alld, therefore, was 110l adequately prepand to discuss the sufficiDicy oft he illvestigattoll, a11d the mutillg was rescheduled. a Did the deparn.nt conduct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelllgatlve phue with due diligence? Tlr4 delays are addr«ssed ill p..Wr questioll3. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority fur the nurse auatained an alleption the nurse fililed to provide lifc-.ving measures, but not dishonesty, and imposed a 5 peroent saluy reduction for three months. However, the nurse went on an extended leave immediately after the incident, did not return to work, and retired beibre the hiring authority served the disciplinary action. Tbe hiring authority fur the offioers and seiJCU!ls round insufficient evidenoe to sua lain alleptiona against the oflioer wllo allegedly fililed to discover the inmlle and one officer and a SCIJeant who allegedly fililed to immediately initiate lift>-saving measures. Tbe hiring authority detennined a SCIJCanl and three oflioers did not initiate lifesaving measures. However, the investiption determined their actions were juatified, lawful, and proper. The OIG ooncurred with the hiring authorities' determinations. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with prooedures soverning the disciplinuy prooess because the hiring autbority fur the nunc did not conduct the diBciplinaly filldings conferenoe in a timely manner and did not adequately coopeme with the OIG. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating I IDaufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions a Did the HA timely coiiiPlt with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHcablc) regarding dbclpllnary determlnatio111 prior to making a final decblon? Tlr4 Offic4 oflllternal Affairs compkted its illves#gatio11 alld "'!ferret/ the matter to the llirillg authorities 011 October U, 2016. However, the mrillg authorityf or the IIUTSe did IIOl cOIISult with the OIG alld deparrment attoi'My regarding the disciplillary detel'llliiiOliOIIS ulltil November 1, 2016, 18 days thereafter bUl was 110t prepared. Tlr4 coiiSUilatioll was compkted 011 November 8, 2016, 25 days after the Office o{l11temal Affairs completed the illves#gatioll. a Did the HA cooperate with and provide contianal real-time consnltatlon with the OIG throughout the dbclpllnary phue? Tlr411irillg authorityf or the IIUTSe did IIOl provide the 0/G with thefOTIII doculllelltillg disciplillary detemtillatto113. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 42 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA • Wu die dbdpllnary phue condliCted with dDe dDJcCDCe by die depu1ment? Th4 tklay is address«/ in a p..Wr quution. Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegationt Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-12-14 16-0000769-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Sualained Letter of Reprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminislnltive Investigation Incident Summary On December 14, 2015, an ofliger allesedly failed to timely notifY hersC!fieanl that an inmate had l:lalt=d her and that she uaed physical force on the inmate, and was dishonest in tq~orting the incident. Pre-dltclpllnary Anestment The department did not comply with pltKledures soverning the pre-disciplinuy process becauae the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. The special qent did not pn:pml a thorough draft investigative tqJOrt. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Inaufficient Sufficient I Anes1ment Questions a Wu die matter referred to the Oftlee of Internal Affairl within 45 ealendar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment kam4d of the alleged misconduct on December 14, 2015, but the hiring authority .Ud not rqer the matter to the Off= ofI nternal Affmra Ulltil February 9, 2016, 57 dflJI3 after the date of discovety. • Wu die lnveatf&atlve draft report provided to die OIG for revlewdloro11gh and approprlaldy drafted? Th4 draft inV«Stigative report .Ud not inclutk a rules violation report aa an ahibit although it 'IIW referenc«< in the report. a Did die department cond11ct die pre-dbclpllnaryllnvelligative phue with dDe dDJcCDCe? Th4 tklay is address«/ in a p..Wr quution. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority suatained the allegation the ofliger nepected her duty, but not that she was dishonest, and issued a letter of tq~rimalld. The OIG concum:d. FoUowing the Slrelly hearing, the hiring authority &i"'Cd to remove the disciplinuy action early from the oflicet's official pei'IIODIIel file. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a hip er level ofn wiew becauae the penalty remained the same 8lld could be uaed fur proi"'5siVC diacipline. The officer did not file an sppesl with State Personnel Board. Dbclpllnary Anessment The department did not comply with pltKledures soverning the disciplinaly pltKless because the hiring authority modified the discipline without sufficientj ustification. Pnlcedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Inaufficient Sufficient Anestment Questions a Wu die draft dlxlpllnary actlnn provided to the OIG for review approprlaldy drafted u dexribed In the DOM? Th4 draft di3ciplinary action did not advise the off=r ofh er right to rupond to an Ullinvolv«< manager. a Wu die dbdpllnary action ICI'ved on the 111bject (1) approprlaldy drafted u daerlbed In the DOM? Th4 disciplinary action serv«< 011 the officer did not advise the off=r ofh er right to respond to an Ullinvolv«< manager. a H there wu a .eUiement agreement, wu die ICU!ement eonlbtent with die DOM facton? Th4 tkpartment agreed to early remowzl of the disciplinary actionf rom the off=r's offickllp era01111el file without identifYing any 1ltlW evidence, flaws, or risb justifYing the modification. • H the penalty wu -dlfled by department action or a ICU!ement agreement, did OIG coneDr wl1h the modlfleatlon? Th4 OIG did not coiiCUr with the decision to permit early remowzl of the disciplinary action from the off=r's offickllpera01111elfile because the tkpartment .Ud not identify any 1ltlW evidence, flaws, or rise justifYing the modification. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 43 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-02-20 16-000 1125-IR 1. Medical-Denied Can: 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained 3. Neglect of Duty 3. Unfuunded Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On February 20, 2016, an officer allegedly fililed to immediately sound an alarm and monitor an unresponsive inmate, and the officer and a se'lleant allegedly fililed to enaure the cellmate was handcuffed when removed from the cell. The sC'IIe&nl also allegedly fitiled to collect the cellmate's clothing as evidence. The 5C'I!Canl and a nurse allegedly delayed beginning lifC>-N.ving measures on the unresponsive inmate, and a second nurse allegecDy abandoned a suicide watch. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinuy process becaw!C the department attorney did not assess the deadline for talring disciplinuy action, was not prepared, and did not adequately ooopenlle and consult with the special agent or the OIG. The hiring authority fur the officer and the SC'I!Canl did not conduct the investiptive findings conference in a timely manner. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insufticient Suflklient Anessment Questions o Did the ~pedal ageut adequately coafer with the department attarney upou cue laitlatloa aad prior to finalizing the lavatlgative plaa? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey WIIS 1101 prr;pared to provide 1Maningful recommendations to the special agent at the initial case COIIference. o Wlthla 11 ealcDdar day1, did the department attorney or employee rdatloiQI oftleer eorrectly a~ea the deadllae for tal<lag dbelpllnary aetlaD aad make au entry inlo the cue maaagement IYIRm conflrmlag the date of the reported lacldent, the date of d!K:overy, the deadllae for tal<lag dbelpllnary aetlaD, aad aay eueptloa1lo the deadllae knOWD at the time? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did 1101 make an entry into the case management system co'!firming relevant datu. o No later thaa 11 calendar day1 following Ullgamentofthe cue, did the department atlorney coutact the Ullgaed ~pedalageut aad the moabarlo diiCIQII the elementl of a thorough lnveltigatlan of the alleged mbcoaduct? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did 1101 colllact the special agent or the OIG to schedule a 1Meting to discuss the ekmmt.f ofa thoroug/1 investigatio11, and the department att0111ey WIIS 1101 prt!pared to provide mt!Jfltlitlgful recommendations regarding the ekmmt.f ofa thoroug/1 investigation at the initial case conference. o Did the department attomey provide 'IO'I*n coaflrmatlon 1ammarlzlng all critical dbeDIIIDnl about the lavatigative report to the 1pecW agent with a copy 1o the OIG? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did 1101 provide the OIG with feedback reganling the draft investigative report. o Did the HA timely CODIDlt with the OIG aad department attorney (If applleable), reganilag the nfficleaey of the lavatigatlou aad the lavatlgative flndlap? Th4 Of.fic4 ofh~Wrnal Affairs compkt4d its investigation and rqerred the matter to the hiring authoriti«s on November 22, 2016. However; the hiring authority for the offker and sergeant did 1101 consult with the OIG and the tkpartment att0111ey rr;ganling the suffscietlcy oft he illvestigation and the investigativefttldill&r ulltil JOitUQI)IlO, 2017, 49 days thereafter. o Did the ~pedal ageut aad departmeut attoraey cooperate aad provide rul-tlme coanltatlau with each other throughout the pre-illlclpllaary phue? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did 1101 colllact the special agent and the OIG to discuss the elements ofa thoroug/1 investigation and was nat prt!pared to provide mt!Jfltlitlgfol recommendations reganling the ekmmts of a thoroug/1 investigation at the initial case COIIference. • Did the department attorney cooperate with aad provide coatlnual real-time connltatlon with the OIG throughout the pre-illlclpllaary phue? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did 1101 provide the OIG with feedback reganling the draft investigative report. a Did the departmeut coaduct the pre-dilclpllnary/lnveltigative phue with due dlllgence? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Dbp01idon The hiring authorities for the officer, 5C'I!Canl, and first JWne fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The hiring authority for the nunes also determined that the investiption conclusively proved the second nurse's miBOOlldlwt did not occur. The OIG concurred with the hiring authorities' determinations. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 44 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-02-24 16-0001068-IR 1. WeapOilll 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On February 24, 2016, an officer allegedly pointed a handgun at a department store's loss-prevention officer. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pn:-daciplinaryproceaa because the special agent did not adequately prepm: fur or conduct the investiption, prepare a complete investiptivc report, or cooperate with the OIG and department attorney. The department attorney did not provide appropriate ft:edback reprding the invcstiptive report and provided poor lepl advioe. The hiring authority did not timely conduct the investiptivc findings conft:renoe or make appropriate findings, and the hiring authority's supervisor did not timely conduct the hip er level of review or make an appropriate decision. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Inauffic:ient Inaufficient Anes1ment Questions o Did the lpCdal agent adeqn.ly prep..-e for all upedl of the lnvatlptlon? Th4 special agem did not obtain photogroplu and diagrams before conducting interviews, despite th6 OIG's recommendation. o Were all of the ln•meWII thorough aad appropriately coadu~d? Th4 special agem did not use photogroplu and diagrams during intuviews, aslr8tlleading que3tions, and sought iTrelewmt opinionsf rom witnes3es. o Within 11 ealeDdar day• following receipt of the lnveltlgative report, did the departmmt attorney review the report and pro\'lde appropriate nbltllltive feedbaek addrelling the thoroughna1 aad clarity oft he report? Th4 department att0111ey's fe«<back did not identify incompkte interview summaries and that the draft investigative report did not include relevant documents. o Wu the lnveltlgative draft report pro\'lded to the OIG for re\'lew thorough and -tJproprla-'y drafted? Th4 draft report omitted critical iriformationfrom interview summari«S and several documents. o Did the lpCdal agent cooper* with aad provide continaal real-time connltation with the OIG? Th4 special agem conducted a site visit and infont~ally intervtewed witnesses without consulting with or involving the OIG. o Did the HA tm.ly connlt with the OIG aad departn.nt attorney {If applleablc), regarding the nlllelcney of the lnvatlptlon aad the lnvatigative ftndlnp? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs compkted its investigation and rqerred the matter to the hiring authority on November 10, 2016. However, the hiring authority did not consult with th6 OIG and th6 department attorney regarding th6 suflkiency of the investigation and th6 investigative findings untO De,_,ber 7, 2016, 27 days thereafter: o Did the department attorney pro\'lde -tJproprla.lcgal connltatlon to the HA regarding the nlllelcney of the lnvatlptlon aad lnveltigative ftndlnp? Th4 department att0111ey providedp oor legal advice to the hiring authority when she advised there was insufficient evidence to sustain th6 allegation. The department attorney also provided poor advice by having th6 hiring authority hald a second investigativef indings conference when the department att0111ey disagreed with th6 hiring authority's initial decision. o Han neeatlve review wu Invoked In the eue, did OIG reqaat the e:recutive review? Th4 OIG elevated th6 hiring authority's nfusal to sustain the allegation to th6 hiring authority's supervisor. o Han neeatlve review wu Invoked. wu the eueatlve review procea In the DOM followed? Th4 hiring authority's supervisor did not scheduk the higher level ofr eview for 42 days. o Han eueatlve review wu Invoked. wu the -tJproprla• deet.IOD made? Th4 hiring authority's supervisor did not make the appropriate decision when she decided to uphold th6 hiring authority's }lllding. o Did the lpCdal agent aad department attorney coopera• and proYide real-&. eonnltation with each other throughout the pre-ilbdpllnary phue? Th4 special agem conducted a site visit and intuviews withaut consulting with the department attorney. o Did the departmeut coaduet the pre-dixlpllnary/lnveltlgative phue with dae dlllgCDee? Th4 delay is addressed in a prior question. Case Dlap01ltlon The hiring authority round insufficient evidenoe to sustain the alleption. The OIG did not concur and elevllted the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. At the higher level ofr eview, the hiring authority's supervisor determined the finding reprding the alleption would "'main as initially determined. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 45 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m.-26 16-0001123-IR L Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained 3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBII8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary Between Febrwuy 26, 2016, and March 2, 2016, an uaociate governmental pro pam analyst allegedly eraaed department networl< computer files without approval. On Much 3, 2016, the usociate govemmental program analyst allegedly yelled at an usociate warden wben asked about the files. On March 7, 2016, a captain allegedly instructed an usociate infonnation syslemB analyst to transrer and erase computer files and a related iblder from the usociate governmental prop am analysts computer. On March 10, 2016, the captain and usociate govemmental propam analyst submitted memonnduma that allegedly omitted importsnt infunnation about the deleted files. J>re.dlscipllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and procedures goveming the pre-daciplinaryproeeaa because the special agent did not adequately prepare fur the inveatiption, coopeme and consult with the OIG, or COI!lb:t a thorough and appropriate investigation, resulting in the hiring authority being unable to make investigative findings. The department attorney provided poor legal advice resulting in a warden with a conflict ofi nterest receiving confidential infunnation. Procedural Rating Subatandw Rating IDaufficient lnallfficicnt I Anes1ment Questions • Did the iipCdal agent adeqn.Iy prepare for all SiipCcU of the lavatlptlon? DtJSpite aJI early OIG recommendation, the special agent tklayed seven montlu before reqUtJStillg a forensic exalllillation oft he associate govemmentprogram aJIQlyst's computer, by which timtr it was too late to cot~duct a reltobk aalllillation. • Did the iipCdal agent cooperate with and provide eontlnnl rul-tlme conlllltation with the OIG? The special agent unilaterally sch«<uled interviews after coordinating interview dattJS with another special agent and the department attoTM)I butfaikd to consult with the OIG. Also, the OIG recommend«/ the special agent review documents, but the special agent inappropriately said he intend«/ to have the ilutilution 's illvtJStigative servictJS unit review the documents. • Wu the iavatlptlon thoro11gh and appropriately eondllded? The special agentf aikd to timely have the assoctote govemmt~t~t program analyst's computer forensically examined. The Office ofI ntemal Affain continu«< to provirk confidential information to a warden with a potential confljct ofi lltertJSt dtJSpite repeated concems ftnt rais«< by the OIG aJid then by the department attorney. o H the HA determined addltlonaliavatlptlon wu neceaary, wu additional Investigation req11e1ted? The hiring authority ddermilled a forensic evaluation oft he assoctote govemmtltltp rogram analyst's computer was required but could not requtJSt additional illvtJStigation because the hard drive had not been pre3eTVed. • Did the department attorney provide approprla.lcgal eoiiSllltatlon to the HA regarding the ndlldeney of the Invatlptlon and Inveltlgatlve flndlnp? DtJSpite the OIG's recommt111dation, the tkpartmtltlt atiomey tklayed seven months bqore advising the deparrment to transfer the matter to a new hiring authority to ddermille the sufficiency oft he illvtJStigation aJid make investigativef indings, during which time a ·wtmlen with a conflict ofilltertJSt continued to receive confidential information. o H the hlrlag uthorlty detumlned that any of the allegatlo11.1 eollld not be 1111talned or that an accua• finding eollld not be nwie regarding any allegation, wu that detumlnatlon the rm~It of an lnla.llldent or 11ntlmely Inveltlgatlon? The hiring authority was not abk to deterlllille when aJid whatf iles were tkkted because the assoctote govemmtltltp rogram analyst's computer was notf omuically aalllill«<. o Did the departmeut eond11ct the pre-dbclpllaary/IDvelligatlve phue with du dlllgeliCe? The tklays are address«/ ill prior questions. Case Dbp01ldon The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 46 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m~ 16-000180S-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Suslained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sualained 3. Nepect ofD uty 3. Not Sualained Case Type: Adminislnltive Investigation Incident Summary On March S, 2016, an oflioer allegedly oounted a dead inmate as alive, abandoned his post befcm: the end of his shift, and fililed to com:ct his timesheet to reflect leaving early. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with prooedures soveming the pre-disciplinuy process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Oflioe of Internal Af!ilirs, the Oflioe of Intemal Af!iJiiS refused to add a dishonesty allegation, and the employee relations oflioer did not ~CCurately complete the fonn documenting investigative findings. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Imuflic:ient Sllflicicnt Anessment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affalrl wlthiD 45 ealcndar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on March 5, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Office of Internal AffaiT3 1111til June 29, 2016, 116 days after the date of discovery. • Did die Offiee of lutem al Afl'aln make m appropriate illi lia! determillatiou regardillg die cue? Th4 Office ofI nternal Affairs improperly refus«< to add a di3honesty alkgation against the officer even though he documented the inmate Q3 being alive when he was dead. • Wu die <DCR Form 481 doeameutillg the filldillp properly completed? Th4 empwyu relations offscer omitted an allegation on thefoT111 documenting the iiiW13tigativefmdillgs. • Did die departmeut coDdllet die pre-dbclpllnary/IDvelltlgative phue with dDe dlllgeuce? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring authority sualained allegations the officer abandoned his post and neglected to amend his timesheet, but not dishonesty, and imposed aS percent Sliuy reduction for three months. The OIG concurred After the Slrielly hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer agreeing to remove the disciplinuy action ftom his official peiSODDel file after 18 months becauae the officer provided a reasonable explanation for not being at his assigned post. The OIG concwred based on the facto IS learned at the Slrielly hearing, but the hiring authority did not consult the OIG befcm: entering into the agreement. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with prooedures soveming the disciplinuy prooess because the hiring authority did not consult the OIG befcm: modifying the penalty. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Imuflic:ient Sufficient Anessment Questions • Did die HA c0111Dit with the OIG md departmeut attorney (If applk:able) before modify!Dg die peualty or agreeillg to a 1etllemeut? Th4 hiring authority modifi«< the penalty without COIISUlting the OIG. o Did die HA cooperate with md provide CODtiDDai real·&. COIIIDitation with the OIG dlrODghollt the dbc:lpliDary phue? Th4 hiring authority did not COIISUlt the OIG before modifying the penaity. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 47 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number AUegations Ftndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016.@-18 16-0001295-IR 1. Diahonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Weapona 2. Not Sustained 3. Battery -On member oft he Department 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Manlh 18, 2016, an officer allesedly pallb ed his wire's head during a physical allenlation, forcefully grabbed his sister's wrists to remove them from his clothing, and pointed a handsun at his sister and her son. Between Manlh 18, 2016, and Manlh 22, 2016, the officer wu allegedly dishonest in a memorandum reguding the incident. On Manlh 22, 2016, the oflicet's wire, also an officer, was allegedly dishonest in a memorandum reguding the incident. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly process because the department attorney did not advise the special asent of deficiencies in the investigative report, and the special asent did not prepare a thorough investigative report. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating lDallflic:ient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Within 11 calcDdar day• following receipt of the lnveltlgatlve report, did the department attorney review the report and provide appropriate obltaDtlve feedbael< addrellling the thonughna1 and clartty oft he report? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 recommend citing tlr4 relevant sections of tlr4 penal code. o Wu the lnveltlgatlve dnft report provided t11 the OIG for re\'lew thorough and ~proprlately drafted? 1114 draft investigative Tt!J'OTt did 1101 cit4 the penal code sections warrallled by tlr4facts. o Wu the tlnaliDveltlgatlve report thorough and ~proprlately dnfted? 1114 special agen/3 did 1101 include, Qlld tlr4 department attorney did 110t recommend, citing tlr4 relevant penal cotk statutes. Case Diaposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegationa. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 48 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 20164t-21 16-0002034-IR 1. Unreasonable Use ofFon:e 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Neglect ofD uty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Suaunary On Apri121, 2016, a se..,ant and fiw oflioel'll allegedly kicked an inmate in the head and fiwe while conducting a cell extraction and fitiled to "'Port their use offunJe. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department did not comply with policiea and procedures governing the pre-dsciplinuyprooess because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Aff'ailll, and the Oflioe oflnternal Aflilil'll did not n-.ke an appropriate initial determination. The special agent neglected to adequatelyp"'PPC fur and conduct the inveatigation and did not P"'PPC a tboroush "'POrt. The depsrtmcnt attorney did not recognize the inwstigatiw "'POrt was incomplete and provided poor legal advioe to the hiring authority. The hiring authority did not oondut.lt the inwstigative findings conference in a timely manner or make appropriate findings and was precluded fiom making all neoesSIII)' findings because the deadline to take disciplinuy action was about to expire. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflic:ient lnJuflic:ient Anes1ment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affalrl wlthiD 45 ealendar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d of the allegal misconduct on Apr a 21, 201 6; but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofl ntemal Affairs until October 4, 2016, more than fwe months after the date ofd iscovery. o Did die Offiee of IDternal Afraln make m appropriate illilial determillatioD regardillg die cue? Tlr4 Office ofI nwrnal Affairs did not add a nurse as a subject of the investigationf or faaillg w report his observt~tions of officers violating the 113e4-force policy. o Did die ~pedal age:ut adeqDmly coDfer wl1h the OIG DpoD cue illltWioD md prior to flullziDg die illvelligative plm? Tlr4 speciol agent did not relliew all relewmt evidenu before participotillg ill the initial case cotiftnt~U. o Did die ~pedal age:ut adeqDmly coDfer wl1h the departmeut attorney DpoD cue IDitiatloD ud prior to fiDallziDg the illvestlgative plaD? Tlr4 special agent did not relliew all relewmt evidenu before participotillg ill the initial case cotiftnt~U. o WlthiD 11 caleudar day• followlug receipt of the illvelligatlve report, did the departmeut attorney revlewdle report md provide appropriate nbltaDtive feedbael< addrelllDg die dloroDghDal ud clarity oft he report? Tlr4 departmellt att0111ey advised the special agent that the investigative report was complete although the repart did not reference relevant documents or include imporWnt information witnesses provid«<. o Wu die illvelligatlve draft report provided to die OIG for re\'lew dloroDgh md appropriately drafted? Tlr4 draft report did not su,arize imporWntfacts andf ailed to reference relevant documents. a Wu die filial illvelligative report dloro~~gh md appropriately drafted? Tlr4 final report did not su,arize important facts andf ailed to reference relevant documents. • Wu die illvelligatloD thoro11gh ud appropriately coDdllded? Tlr4 investigation required additicnal interviews, whidl the special agent rqiued w conduct. o Did die HA timely coDIPlt wldl die OIG ud departmeDt attomey (If applieable), regardillg the nfficleDey of the illvestigatioD ud the illvestlgatlve filldillp? Tlr4 Office ofI nternal Affairs completed its iiiW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority on March 30, 2017. However; the hiring authority did not cONJult with the OIG and department attomey reganlillg the sufficiency of the investigation and the iiiW!3tigative fuulillgs until Apra 14, 201 7, 15 doys thereafter. • H the HA determilled addltioDal illvelligatloD wu Deceaary, wu addltloDal illvestlgatioD requated? Tlr4 hiring authority did not request additional investigation because the deadline w wke disciplinary action would expire ill seven days. o Did die departmeDt attomey pmvlde appropriate legal coDIPltatioD to the HA regardillg the nfficleDey of the illvestigatioD ud illvelligative filldillp? Tlr4 departmellt att0111ey advised the hiring authority no allegations should be sll3tailled despitesuffldent evidenu of misconduct. o Did die HA who partldpmd ill die filldillp collfereuce ldeutify the appropriate 111bjedl ud faetllal ai.IegatioDI for each nbject bued OD the evldeuoe? Tlr4 hiring authority did notf ind the olficers violated the 113e4-force policy andf ailed w report their liSe offo rce. • Did die HA who partldpmd ill die filldillp coDfereuce appropriately determille die illvelligative filldillp for each allegatioD? Tlr4 hiring authorityf ound illsuffldent evidenu w s113taill the allegations despite sufficient evidence of 111Uconduct. o H the hlriDg mthorlty determilled that uy of the ai.IegatioDI coa.Id Dot be 1Ditailled or that u accurate filldillg coa.Id Dot be made regardillg uy ai.Iegatio. .. wu dlat determiDat!OD die renlt of u ill111fficleDt or 11Dtlmely illvelligatlOD? SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 49 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Th4 hiring authority tktennined tlr4 evidenc4 was not sufficient to sustoin the allegations because the special agent did not interview all witnen«S. o Did the departmeut collduct the pn-dbclpliDary/IDvelligative phue with du dlllgeuce? Th4 delays are addressed in prior questiom. Case Disp01ition Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evideDce to sustain the alleptiODB. The OIG ooncu.rred with the hiring autbority's determination there was insufficient evidence to sustain the use-of-force alleptiODB but not with the detennination to notsustain ftillure to report. The OIG did not seek: a higber level ofr eview because the deadline to take disciplinary action wu about to expire. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-05-04 16-0001851-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Letter ofI nstruction Letter ofI nstruction 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained 3. Failure to Report 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminislnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On May 4, 2016, an officer allegedly ftilled to report an inmate battered him, his use ofp hysical force on the inmate, aud was dishonest about the incident to a sergeanl Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with policies aud procedures governing the pre-dsciplinaryprocess because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affainl, the special agent did not COillb:t a timely inwatigation or adequately coopen~te with the department attorney, aud the department attorney did not provide timely feedbaek: regarding the draft investigative report. AB a result of the delays, witnesses were not able to recall details of the incidenl Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 lnsllffic:ient Insuffic:ient Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Ofllee of IDtemal Affidrl wlthiD 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 department/earned oft he alleged misconduct on May 4, 1016, but tlr4 hiring authorUy did not refer tlr4 matter to the OffiCe ofI nternal Affain Ulltil July 18, 1016, 75 days after the date ofd iscovery. o WlthiD 11 ealeDdar day• followlog reedptof the IDvelligative report, did the departmeut attorney review the report and provide appropriate obltantive feedbael< addreaillg the thoro11ghDeB1 and clarity oft he report? Th4 Office ofl ntemal Affairs provided tlr4 draft report to the department attorney on January 11, 1017, but tlr4 department attorney did not provide substolltive feedback regarding tlr4 report Ulltil February 7, 1017, 17 days thereafter. o Wu the IDvatigatloD thoro11gh and approprlately colldllcted? Th4 special agent unreasonably delayed tlr4 inV«Stigation byf ailing to prepare a draft ifiVtJStigative reportf or two months after inteTviewing the offker. o Did the ~pedal agent and departmeut attorney cooperate and provide real-time eouiPitatiou with each other thro11gho11t the pre-ilbdplloary phue? Th4 Office oflntemal Affairs ignored the department attorney's advice that additional inV«Stigation was necessa')l sclledukd an interview without COIISUltation, ond threatened to send tlr4 report to the hiring authority b<ifore receiving substantive feedback o Did the departmeut colld11ct the pn-dbclpliDary/IDvelligative phue with du dlllgeuce? Some delays are addressed in prior qu«Sttolls. In addition, the Office oflntemal Affairs uflfltJcessarily delayed tlr4 inV«Stigation after ignorillg advice from tlr4 department attorney and the OIG that additional investigation was MCessary. AI a r«SUlt oftlr4 delays, witness«S were unable to adequately recall tlr4 incident. Case Disp01ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation that the oflieer fililed to report the inmate battered him, but found insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining alleptions, aud issued a letter of instruction. The OIG ooncu.rred with the hiring authority's detenninations. Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies aud procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnleedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 50 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~~ 16-0001823-IR 1. Diahoncaty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident Summary On May 6, 2016, a lieutenant allegecDy failed to comply with prooedun:s for adjudicating a rules violation report and dishonestly documented that an inmate was present and testified at the hearing. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The depsrtment did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-diaciplirully process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilirs or timely conduct the inveatiptiw findings conference, and the special agent was not diligent in dnifting the inveatiptiw report. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions • Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alkg«J mi3conducl on May 12, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until July 5, 2016, 54 daJ13 ofter the date ofd i3covery. • Did tile HA timely collftlt wltll tile OIG uut departmnt attorney (If applieable), regarding the nfficleDcy of the lnvatigatlnn uut the lnvatlgalive findings? 1'114 Office ofI nternal Affairs compleud its investigation and "'!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authority 011 Man:ll10, 2017. However, the hiring authority did not cONiult willl the OIG and the department attorney 1flgardillg the sufficimcy oft he investigation and the illvestigativejilldillgs until Man:ll30, 2017, 20 days thereafter. • Did tile department condnct tile pre-dixlpllnary/lnvelligalive phue wltll dne dntgence? 1'114 hiring authority's tklays are addressed in JITWr questions. In addition, the special agent compkted investigative activities 011 November 29, 2016, but did not provide the investigative reportf or review until February U, 2017, 77 daJ13 thereafter. Case Dlaposltlon The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concumxl. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 51 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~~ 16-000 1834-IR l. Dillbonesty l. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Unreuonable Use ofForoe 2. Not Sustained 3. NeglectofDuty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminiliu.tive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry On May 6, 2016, an oflioer allegedly threw an inmate to the ground, diahoneatly reported the need to use foroe, and removed potential evidence ftom hia unifunn before the evidence wu photographed. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pn:-dsciplinuyprocess because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affainl, and the special agent did not condud a thorouaJl and timely investigation. The delay in conducting the investigation resulted in a critical witneas retiring before being interviewed. Procedural Rating Subltandve Rating Inauflicient lnJufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alleg«J mi3conducl on May 6, 20115, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Off~ a ofI nternal Affairs until July U, 2016, 159 daJ13 ofter the date ofd i3covery. o Wu tile lnvatlgatton thorough uut appropriately eouducted? 1114 special agent took eight months to complete the investigation, tookf ive months to di3cover a critical witness retired 18 daJ13 after the special agent was assign«/ to conduct he investigation, and took seven months to determine the critical witnen refused to be interviewed. 1114 Office ofI nternal Affairs also refused to conduct a forensic «l«lmination ofa critical document o Did tile department eouduct tile pre-dixlpllnary/lnveltlgative phue with due dlllcenc:e? 1114 tklays are addressed in prior questioNI. Case Dlapotldon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 52 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016~-11 17-0022199-IR 1. Neglect ofDuty 1. Sustained Letter ofinatrudion Letter ofinatruction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On May 11, 2016, a se..,ant &llesedlypl.a:d a pepper sptay canister nazzle inches fiom an inmate's ~and threatened to spray the inmate ifh e did not submit after the inmate resisted and tlm:atened to bite offioera. Pre-dlsclpllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-disciplinaly process bCCB\ISC the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofintemal Affilirs, and the Office of Internal Aflililll did not ...te an appropriate initial detennination. The employee relations officer did not enter relevant dates into the case management system. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions • Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alleg«J mi3conducl on May 17, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until March 14, 2017, almost ten mOIIlhs ofter the date ofd iscovery. • Did tile Offiee of lutem al Afraln mal<e m appropriate illilial determillatiou regudillg tile eue? 1114 OIG 1ftcontmentkd a full illvutigation to qU&1tion involved officers and the inmate reganlillg the tktails oft he illddent b«ause nos aU rt!IJOI1s were thoroug/1 and there were questions reganlillg the circumstlliiCes surrounding the use offoru. Additionally, the OIG recommended alleging threOl and intimidation towanl the inmate based on the sergeOIIl) statements to the inmate. 1114 Office ofI nternal Affairs denied the recommendations. o Wltllln 11 ealeDdar day1, did tile departme:Dt attorney or employee relatlou offker eorreetly --tile deadlille for tUIDg dlxlpliDary aetiDD and mal<e m eutry iDto tile eue llllUlage_..t ll)'llfem eouflrmlllg the date of the reported illeldeut, tile date of dbeovery, tile deadlille for tUIDg dlxlpliDary aetiDD, md my esceptioDI to the deadlille lmcnm at tile time? 1114 employee relations offiC(fT did not make 1111)1 entry into the case management system colljirmillg 1ftkvant dates. o Did tile deparn.ut eoDd11et tile pre-dixlpliDary/IDveltlgatlve phue with dDe dlllgeuce? 1114 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Dltpotltlon The hiring authority sustained the &llegatiou and issued a letter of instruction. The OIG concurred Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Ratln Su.f!icient Sufticient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 53 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-05-18 16-0001783-IR 1. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Dillboneaty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On May 18, 2016, a COUIUielor allegedly gmbbed a civilian during an UJW~~entand lied to oulaide law enforoement and the department regarding hia conduct. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Ovcnll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the prc-disciplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficiatt Case Dbp01ition The hiring authority suatsined the allegation the COUIUielor gtabbed a civilian, but not that he was dishonest, and imposed a 10 pen1ent sslary reduction fur six months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninationa. The cOUIUielor did not file an appeal with the State Penonnel Board. Dbcipllnary Anessment Ovcnll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficiatt Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findingt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-05-20 16-000 1832-IR 1. Unreasonable Use ofFmce 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Adminislnltive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry On May 20, 2016, an officer allegedly slammed an inmate to the ground and kicked the inmate in the fiwe with his boot. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficiatt Anessment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offla of IDtemal Affaln witllln 45 ealendu-da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd oft he alleg«J misconduct on May 20, 201 6, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to th4 Office ofI nternal Affairs until July 7, 2016, 411 daJ13 ofter the date ofd iscovery. o Did tile departmeut eoDduet tile pre-dbclpliDary/IDvertlgative phue witll due dlllgeuee? Th4 tklay is addre3sed ill a p..Wr question. Case Disp01ition The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 54 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegation1 Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-06-15 16-0001858-IR 1. Use afForce 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Fail~m0 to Report 2. Not Suatained 3. Nepeet ofDuty 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Summary On June 15, 2016, an oflioer allesedly told inmates another inmate was a png member. A second oflioer allesedly pllll(lhed a batldcuffed inmate, and a third officer allegedly puncbed that inmate and a second inmate after the inmatea nm toward a fuurth officer. The four oflioers and two other oflioen allesedly fililed to report the uae off urce. A fifth oflioer ailes eeDy told the two inmates not to report being beaten. An officer who served the inmates with rulea violation reports allegedly told them a lieutenant would take care oft he rulea violation reports ift hey kept quiet. On June 16, 2016, the lieutenant allegedly dismissed the rulea violation reports without sufficient basis. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with prooedures soverning the pre-disciplinuy proceas because the Office ofintenW A1f8irs did not consult with the prosecuting agency and the hiring authority did not timely concluct the investigative findings conimlnoe. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflicient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions • Did the OIA adeqDatdy eGDndt with the OIG, department attorney (If delf&nated), aud the appropriate proseeutiDg ageuey 1o determine Ifa n admlnbtrative lnvatlptlon shollld be eGDdueted cooelliTCntly with the crlmlnallnvestlptlnn? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs did 110t cOIISult with the appropriate J1"WttCUtitlg agency to determine wlldller a criminal illve.stigatioll was warrQIIt«/. • Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG &lld dep..._,t attorney (If applleablc), regarding the llllllclcney of the lnvatlptlnn &lld the lnvatlgative flndlnp? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compklted its investigation and rqerred the matter to the hiring authority on Apri/21, 2017. However, the hiring authority did 110t consult with the OIG Qlld the department attomey reganlillg the sufficiency of the investigation Qlld the illve.stigativeftndillgs until June 5, 2017, 45 days thereafter. • Did the department condllct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with due d111cCDee? Tlr4 delay is address«/ ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidenoe to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 55 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-26 16-0001882-IR LUaeofFmce L Not Sustained Letter ofI nstruction Letter of Instruction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On June 26, 2016, a aerseant allegedly plllldted an inmate in the fiwe after the inmate spat towud an officer who was ~Qtraining the inmate. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department's bandling of the P"'-<isciplinuy process was substantively insufficient because the Oflioe ofI nternal Aflitits did not reoonaider the need for an inwatigation, the hiring authority sought and obtained advioe from the wrong souroe regarding the use offuroe, and the department attorney provided poor legal advioe. Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 Suflicicnt Insufficient Anes1ment Questions o H the hlriDg uthorlty 111bm!Ued a req11at for neonlklentlon, did the Oftloe of Internal Affaln make an approprla• dec:blon regarding the reqliCIIt? Tlr4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs rqused to grant the hiring audrority's appeal requesting an investigation. o Did the HA properly deem the Oftloe of Internal Affaln IDvatigatioa lllffldeat or IIUiatllcleat? Tlr4 hiring authority initially found the investigation sufficient despil4 the OIG's recommendation for fuTt/Jer investigrltion to obtain relevant evidenc4. o Did the HA properly d•rmtae whether addltloaallllvatigatioa wu aecCMary? Tlr4 hiring authority soughl the advice ofa n academy use-of-force instructor who provided emmeous advice reganiing legal matien. o Did the department attorney provide approprla•Icgat CODIIlltatlon to the HA regardlllg the lllfllcieaey of the IDvatlgatiDa and IDveltlgatlve fladlnp? Tlr4 departmeni atiomeyp rovidedp oor advice when advising the hiring authority at the initial investigrltive findings conference that the investigation was sufficient. o Han eucative review wu tawbd Ill the cue, did OIG req11at the e:ucative review? Tlr4 OIG did not coiiCUr with the hiring authority's finding that the investigation was suffiCient and eleva14d the matier to the hiring authority's supervisor. At the higher level ofr eview, the hiring authority's supervisor agreed that the investigation was itiSUfficient and submitted an appeal to the Office of lntenlal Affainf or additional investigation. Case Dbp01ltion Tbe hiring authority round insufficient evidenoe to sustain the allegation. Tbe OIG ooncurred with the hiring authority's detenniaations. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 56 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-26 16-0001989-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. U=uonable Use ofForce 2. Not Suatained 3. Failure to Report Use ofF orce 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On July 26, 2016, a sergeant and th= offioel'll allegedlyp\lll(lbed and hit an inmate without cauae and fitiled to report the uae offurce. A fuurth officer and a llUille allegedly witnessed the uae of force and fitiled to report it. The sergeant, four offioel'll, and llUille also allegedly conspired with each other to prevent reporting the llllnlUonable force. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with prooedurea governing the pre-disciplinaly process becauae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Offioe of Internal Aflilirs. The department aUomcy did not make any entry into the cue management system ronfinning relevant datea. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating IDallffic:ient Sufficiatt Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Af'fidrl wlthla 45 ealeDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmetll karMd of the alleged misconduct on July 17, 101 6, but the hiring authorily did not rqer the matter to the Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs until September 16, 1016, 61 days after the date of diswvery. o WltldD 11 ealcDdar day1, did the department attorney or employee relatlo~U oftleer eorreetly UICSII the deadline for taldllg dbelpliDary aetioD aDd make an entry IDto the cue maugeiiiCIIt 1)'11tem confirmlllg the dm of the reported IDctdent, the dm of d!K:overy, the deadline for taldllg dbelpliDary aetioD, and any eueptlon1 to the deadliDe known at the time? Th4 tkpartmetll att0111ey did nat make any entty into the =e management system c01!{1T711ing relevant date3. o Did the departmeat conduct the pre-dbclpliDary/lavelllgative phue with dae d111geace? Th4 tklay is address«/ in a p..Wr question. Case Dbposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to suatsin the allegations. The OIG conllUIIOO. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 57 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlngt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-07-28 16-000211(}-IR L Misuse of Authority L Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. NeglectofDuty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sullllllary On July 28, 2016, a lieutenant allegedly fililed to properlypi'O(leN an inmate oomplaint "'guding staffmiBcondlwt and on Auguat 26, 2016, allegedly misled the inmate into withdrawing the complainL Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and proced~a governing the P"'-daciplinuy process because the department attorney provided deficient lepl advice, and in ldiance on the deficient advice, the hiring authority did not sustain allegations the evidence supported The department attorney did not adequately cooperate with the OIG. The hiring authority did not timely oonduct the investigative findings oonference, Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating IDaufficient Inaufficicnt I Anes1ment Questions • Did the dep.n-nt attorney provide wr!*a ooaflrmatlen 11Uillllal'lzlng all erltlcal dbclllllionl abo11t the Invatlgdive report to the 1peeW agent 'lrith a oopy 1o the OIG? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 provide the OIG with written c01!{11111ation summarizing discussi0113 regarrlillg the investigative report. o Did the HA tm.ly co111111t with the OIG uut deputment attorney (If applleable), regarding the nfficleDcy of the lnvatlgatln• uut the lnvatlgative llndlnp? 1114 Offic4 ofhltemal Affairs compkted its investigation and rqenwl the matw to the hiring aulhority on February 23, 2017. However, the hiring aulhority did not consult with the OIG and the department attorney 1flgarding the sufficimcy oft he investigation and the illv«Stigativejindings tmtil March 20, 2017, 25 days thereafter. o Did the department attorney provide appnprlate legal co111111tatlen to the HA regarding the nfficleDcy of the lnvatlgatlnn uut lnvelligdive llndlnp? 1114 tkpartment attorney advised the hiring authority allegations could not be swtoilled despite sufficimt evitknce supporting the allegations. o Did the HA who partidpated In the llndlnp conference appropriately determine the Invatlgdive llndlnp for each allegatlnn? 1114 hiring aulhority did not sustoin allegatkms the evidence suppomd, relying on the deponmmt atiomey's advice. o Did the department attorney cooperate with and provide contlnnal real-tm. co111111tatlen with the OIG thronghont the pre-illlclpllnuy phue? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 provide the OIG written conjirmation of discussions regarding the illv«Stigative repoTt. o Did the department cond11ct the pn-dbclpllnaryllnveltlgative phue 'lrith du diligence? 1114 tklay i3 address«/ ill a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not ooncur with the hiring aulhority'a detennination but did not seek: a higher level ofn wiew because the lieutenant"'~ prior to conclusion oft he investigation. The hiring authority placed a letter in the lieutenant's official personnel file indicating he "'~d pending disciplinary action. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 58 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegationt Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~8-18 16-0002006-IR L Neglect of Duty L Unfu\lllded No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Administnllive Investigation Incident Sullllllary On Auau.st 18, 2016, two oflioel'll allegedly failed to resolve an inmate dispute, resulting in a battety on an inmate. Two other ofliOCI'II MrC allegedly absent from their assigned posts, a fifth oflioer allegedly failed to observe the incident, and a sixth oflioer allegedly ruled to respond to the incident. Pre-disciplinary Anet1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinaty proceas because the department attorney provided poor legal advioe. Pnleedunl Radn1 Substantive Radn1 Inallflicient Sufficient Anet1ment Questions o Did the department attnmey provide approprla.lcgal eoiiSllltatlon to the HA regarding the Dllldeney of the lnvatlgatlon and lnveltlgatlve flndlnp? The lkparlltletlt attorney advised the hirillg autlwrity to 11ot sustai11 the allegatioNI dt!3pite the i11VUtigatio11 0011clusively proving the aJJeged misCOIIduct did 11ot occur. The deparrment ottonrey did 110t ullderstalld the difference bdwull a finding of UlifOUII!kd a lid a jilldi11g of 11ot sustaill«<. Case Dbpotltion The hiring authority delemlined that the investigation conclusively proved the misconduct did not occur. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 59 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-08-24 16-0002151-IR L Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Suatained Suapenaion Suapension Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On AIIIWit 24, 2016, ouWde law enfonlement am=~t ed a cOIIIIBCior after she allegedly jumped on her daughter, knocked her to the ground, and bit her, and for allegedly being intoxicated in public. Pre-dlscipllnary Anestment The department did not comply with policies and prooedures governing the pre-disciplinaryprooess becauae the hiring authority delayed referring the matter to the Offioe of Internal Af!ilirs and did not seek additional investigation, and the department attorney provided insufficient lepl advioe to the hiring authority. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallffic:ient Inaufficient Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affalrll within 45 ealcnd..-da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmetll karMd oft he alleged misconduct on August 15, 1016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Off~ee oflntenlal Affain Ulltil December 5, 1016, 101 tlaJ13 after the date ofd iscovery. • Did the HA properly d•rmiDe wllether addltlonaiiDvatlgatlon wu neeaury? Th4 hiring authority tkcided it was nos necessary to tktermille whether the coUIISelor was dishonest to outside law enforcement. o Did the department attorney pro\'lde -tJproprlate legal connltatlon to the HA regU"diDg the nfficlency of the IDvatlgatlon and IDveltlgalive flndiDp? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney advised the hiring authority the illvt!3tig0lion was sufficient when it was nOl sufficient. a Did the department conduct the pre-dbclp11Daryllnveltlgative phue with dne dDigence? Th4 tklay is addrt!3a«< ill a p..Wr quution. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority suatained the allegation and imposed a 60-wmking-day suspension. The OIG ooncum:d. However, the counselor rctin:d before the disciplinary action took effect. The hiring authority plaoed a letter in the cOIIIIBCior's official personnel file indicating she rctin:d pending disciplinary action. Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedures governing the disciplinary prooess. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 60 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-09-20 16-0002109-IR L Dishonesty L Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Inaubordination/Willful Disobedience 2. Not Sustained 3. DiBcourteoua Treatment 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On September 20, 2016, an officer allegedly refused a aCIJCalll's onier to open a door and used profimity Iowan! the scqeant. On September 28, 2016, the officer was allegedly dishonest in a report reguding his interaction with the sergeant. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with the policies and procedures governing the pre-diB<:ipliJWY process because the hiring autbority delayed conducting the investigatiw findings conft:rence, found the investigation sufficient, and did not request additional inwstigation. Due to the insufficient investigation, the hiring autbority was unable to thorougbly evaluate the allegations. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDaufficient Inaufficicnt Anes1ment Questions • Did the HA timely coDBlt with the OIG and department attorney {If applleablc), regarding the RJIIlclcncy of the invatlgatlon and the invatlgatlve flndlnp? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 mattu to the hiring authority on FebTuary 16, 2017. Howewr, tlr4 hiring authority did not c0113ult with the OIG and depaTtment attorney reganling the sufficjency oftlr4 evidence and thefindinfP Ulltil April5, 2017, 48 days thtJI'tJaftet: • Did the HA properly deem the Office of Internal Afl'ain invatlgatloD lllffldeat or lnaalllclcnt? Th4 hiring authority deemed tlr4 investigation suffiCient without an interview oftlr4 sergeant to determine whether the of.fiur was dishonest in reporting tlr4 incident. • Did the HA properly determine whether addltlnaalinvatlgatloD wu aecCMuy? Th4 hiring authority incOITeClly determined additional investigation was not neu;ssary. • H the hlrlag aathorlty determined that aay of the allegatlou coald Dot be 1Ditained or that aa accarate finding coald Dot be made regarding aay allegation, wu that determination the renlt of aa lnaalllclcnt or DDtlmely inveltigatloa? Th4 hiring authority could notp roperly evaluate the allegations because tlr4 department did not interview tlr4 sergeant reparting the alleged miscunduct • Did the dep.n-Dt coadDct the pre-dbclpllnary/laveltlgatlve phue with dae dlllgeace? Th4 delay is addressed in a prior question. Case Dbp01ltlon Tbe hiring autbority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG did not concur with the hiring authority's decision thst the investigation was sufficient. However, the OIG did not seek: a higher level ofr eview because the hiring autbority's intetpretltion ofe xiating evidence wu reasonable. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 61 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-1~12 16-0002115-IR L Dishonesty L Suatained Diamiaaal Diamiaaal 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained 3. Insubordination/WillfUl Disobedience 3. Not Sustained 4. Insubordination 4. Not Sustained S. Neglect ofDuty 5. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sullllllllry On October 12, 2016, an officer allegedly left the institution after being instructed to stay at his post, was allegedly disbonest to a labor relations analyst claiming be would wait for berphone call at hia post, called in sick without providing sufficient notice, and refused to submit to drug testing. On October 16, 2016, the officer allegedly submitted a fillae physician's note to the hiring authority. On Januuy 11, 2017, the officer allegedly disobeyed a special agents order to provide a valid physician's note and was dishonest during an interview with the Office ofI nternal Aflitits. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe departments bandling of the pre-disciplinuy process waa substantively insufficient because the department attorney provided deficient legal advice to the hiring authority and the hiring authority did not make appropriate inveatigativc findings. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Insufficient Anes1ment Questions • Did the department attorney provide approprla.lcgal COIISllltatlon to the HA regarding the ollldeney of the lnvatlgatlnn and lnveltlgatlve flndlnp? Tlr4 departmellt attorney advised the hirillg authority not to sustain allegattons the officer Wll3 dishonest and refUsed to submit to drug testing when there was sujJkient evidence to sustain the allegattons. • Did the HA 'll'ho partldpmd In the flndlnp conference Identify the appro~ 111bjedl and factllal allcgatlnDI for each object hued on the evidence? Tlr4 hiring authority did not add an oppropriat4 allegation that the ojJker rqused to submit to a drug test whm there was sufficient evidenu to support the allegation. • Did the HA 'll'ho partldpmd In the flndlnp conference appropriately determine the lnveltlgatlve flndlnp for each allegatlnll? Tlr4 hiring authority did not find that the officu rqused to submit to a drug test despite sufficient evidence to suppoTt the allegation. Case Dbp01ldon Tbe hiring authority sustained allegations the officer waa disbonest when submitting a 1illse doctol's note and during the interview with the Office of Internal Aflitits, but not the remaining allegations, and determined dismissal waa the appropriate penalty. Tbe OIG concurred exllept as to the decision not to add and sustain an allegation the officer refused to submit to a drug tesl Tbe OIG did not seck a higher level of review due to conflicting evidence. Tbc officer resigned before the dismissal took effecl The hiring authority placed a letter in the officel's official personnel filed indicating be resigned pending disciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 62 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10-31 16-0002121-IR 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior 1. Suatained Salary Reduction Modified Saluy Reduction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllary On0ctober31, 2016, anoflioerwu am:atedafterhe allegedly grabbed theb&d<ofhis wffi:'s bead and hit it againstapieoe off urniture, resulting in bruisingofherrishteye andascrak:honherleft ann. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process because the department attorney did not timely assess the deadline for taking disciplinary action or adequately consult with the OIG and nesJected to update the deadline for taking disciplinary action. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Insufliciellt Sufficient Anessment Questions • Within 11 ealeDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar cornctly --the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDlo the cue management I!YIIem eonflnniDg the date of the reporiM IDeldent, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any escept1Dn11D the deadliDe lmcnm at the time? The tkpartmetll attorney Wll3 assigned Decm~ber 9, 2016, but did 11ot makie a11 cmtry illto the case ma~~agemmt system reganli11g the deadlillefor taking disciplinary actioll ulllil Ja~~Uary 3, 201 7, 25 days after assigrrmmt. o No later than 11 calendar day1 followiDg aaJcmnentofthe eue, did the department atloroey eoataet the aalgaed ~pedal agent and the monltnrto diiCIQII the element. of a thorough IDvertlgatiDn of the alleged mileondnet? The tkpartmetll attorney Wll3 assigned Decm~ber 9, 2016, but did 11ot oolltact the OIG ulllil Ja~~Uary 4, 2017, 26 days after assigrrment. o Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadUne for taldng dilelpliDary aetlon u orf&lnally ealenlated 1ho11id be modified and eonllllt with the OIG and 1pedal agent? The tkpartmetll attorney did llot recalculal4 the tkadlinefor taki11g disciplinary actio11 after the district attorney tkclined to fsle criminal chargt13. Case Dbposltlon The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 10 percellt saluy reduction fur 12 months. The OIG concuned. Afler the Sk4lly hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 10 peroent Sllary reduction fur six months because oflioer was remorsefUl and provided evidence that the misconduct was unintentional. The OIG concurred based on the fkctoqleamed at the Skelly hearing. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not serve the disciplinary action in acconlance with policy. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Insufficient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Wu the dildp!IDary phue eondDeted with du dDigeDee by the department? The tkpartmetll did 11ot serve the disciplinary actioll wilhin 30 days oft he tkcisioll to takie disciplinary actio11. The hiring authority oollducl4d the disciplinary fmdings cOIIjerence 011 February 1, 2017. However, the department did 110t serve the disciplinary acti011 until March 6, 2017, 33 days later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 63 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-11-19 17-(1021923-IR L Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On November 19, 2017, an officer wu allesedly dishonest during a rules violation hearing when she provided infurmation that wu inoonaiatent with her written reports regarding an inmate fishl Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures soverning the prc-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilira, and the special agent did not cooperate with or provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating I Insuftk:ient Sufficient Anessment Questions • Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln within 45 ealendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd oft he alleg«J misconduct on November 19, 2016, but the hiring authority did not refer the malter to the Offsce ofI nternal Affairs until February 13, 2017, 86 days ofter the date ofd iscovery. • Did the ~pedal agent adeq11ately confer with the OIG li(JOD eue lnltlatlon and prior to finalizing the lnveltigatlve plan? Th4 special agem unilaJerally schedul«< the initial case conftnnCtJ without consulting the OIG and refused to tUCheduk the conftnnCtJ until the OIG elevated the matter to his supervisor. • Did the ~pedal agent cooperate with and provide eontlnllal real-time conlllltatlon with the OIG? Th4 special agenl unilaJerally schedul«< the initial case conftnnCtJ and the off1C6's ~ which Wll3 held at a distant imtitution, and refused to rescheduk the conference until the OIG raised the issues to a senior special agent. • Did the dep..n.nt eond11et the pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltigative phue with due dlllcence? Th4 tklay is addressed in a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 64 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA North Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2007-10-29 09-0000143-IR l. MisWie ofA uthority l.Suslained S&laly Reduction No Pell8lty Imposed Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On October 29, 2007, a parole agent allegedly used his position all a parole agent to gain access to another law enfmcement agency's database to obtsin law enftmlement records of a member of his faith community. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with pltKledures soverning the pre-disciplinaly process becaw~e the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office oflnterll81 Af!ilirs, amd the department attorney did not mske a required entry into the case management system. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Imuffic:ient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~ wlthiD 45 ealcndar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d of the alleged misconduct on June 30, 1008, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Offic4 oflntemal Affairs ulllil September 10, 1008, 71 days after the date of discovery. o WithiD 11 calelldar day1, did die departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offleer correctly Ulaldle deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary actioD and make Ul entry iDto die cue management 11)'11tem eonflnniDg the dm of the repor1ed IDeldent,dle dm of diKovery, die deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary aetloD, ud uy esceptloD• to the deadiiDe lmOWD at die time? Tlr4 departmellt attorney made an entry into the case management system. Ho'WtJVer, he merely stated that he assess«/ the date of the incident, discovery date, and the deadline for taking disciplillaty action without indicating the actual dale3. o Did die department eondnet die pre-dbclpiiDaryllnvelligative phue wl1h dne dDigenee? Tlr4 delay is addre3s«< ill a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation amd imposed a 5 penx:nt salary reduction fur 12 months. Tbe OIG ooneum:d with the hiring authority's decision. The parole agent :filed an appeal with the State Pell!Onnel Boud. Following a hearing, the State Penonnei Boud revoted the disciplinary action because the adminiBtl8tiw law judge ruled the department failed to sem: the disciplinuy action in a timely manner. Tbe depsrtment filed a writ of mamdate in superior eourt amd prevailed. Tbe parole agent filed an appeal with the state appellate eourt. Tbe appellate court ruled in filvor of the depsrtment and directed the State Personnel Board to vacate its decision revoking the action and to conduct further proceedings on the merits. Tbe hiring authority then wanted to settle the matter with the parole agent by reducing the penalty to a letter of reprimand. The OIG did not agree and elevated the matter to the hiring autbority's supervisor. At the hisher level ofr eview, the hiring authority's supervisor agreed with the settlement terms. Howewr, the parole agent never agreed to the settlement. Tbe State Personnel Board issued a decision on the merits and revoked the disciplill&l)' action. Tbe State Personnel Board found the department did not prove the parole agent received proper training and instruction about what constituted the right and need to know the crimill81 history infurmltion pursuant to departmental policy, fuund the parole agents testimony credtllle, beliewd be requested the information in an attempt to ensure he wu properly performing his duties all a departmental employee to avoid any close association with a pCiliOD with a crimill81 history, and that his request for the information wu not so obviously wrong that be had to know be was doing something wrong. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with pltKledures soverning the disciplinary pltKless because the department intended to enter into a settlement agreement without a change in circumstance or oon:finning the potential :finaneialloss ift he department did not prevail. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Imuffic:ient Sufficient I Anessment Questions a Han neentlve review wu IDwked ID die cue, did OIG reqnat the e:rec:ntlve review? After the department reeeiv«< a favorable ruling from the appellate cour4 the department sought to settle the case by modifying the penalty to a letter of reprimond. The OIG did nat concur and soug/lt a hig/ler level of review because the department did not identifY any new evidet~CtJ,flaws, or risla in the case. The department attorney recommended settkmmt to avoid patmtial backp ay with interest without COIIjirmillg the amount of backp ay and interest the department would owe, ifa ny, beCllWie the parole agent retired shoTtly after the disciplinary action Wil3 served. a Han neentlve review wu IDwked, wu die appropriate decUion made? Tlr4 hiring authority~ supervisor, despite no changed citeumstances, decided to malrie the offer to settle the case to the parole agent. The parole agent did not accept the offer. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 65 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Inidal Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2013-05-23 17-0000114-IR l. Dishonesty l. SUB!aimed Dismilis&l Dismissal 2. Controlled Substances 2. SWitained 3. Neglect ofD uty 3. SUB!aimed 4. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 4. SUB!aimed Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary Between May 23, 2013, and December l, 2016, an officer allegedly fililed to notify the hiring authority he did not po111e1111 a valid driver's license. On December l, 2016, outside law enforcement am:ated the officer fur allegedly driving with a SWipended drivets license and poi!IICI!aing steroids without a preacription. On December 7, 2016, the officer allegedly lied in a memorandum to the hiring authority. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinsry process. Plveedural Rating Subltandve Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dlsp01ldon The hiring authority SWitsined the allegations and dismilised the officer. The OIG concurred However, the officer rctin:d beibre disciplinary action eould be imposed The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's official personnel file indicating he "'tired pending disciplinuy action. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinuy process. Plveedural Rating Subltandve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 66 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2014~1-01 16-000183~IR 1. Diahoneaty 1. Sustained Dismi1!181 Dismiaaal 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained 3. Inaubordinatioll/Wtllfill Diaobedienoe 3. Sustained 4. Nealect of Duty 4. Sustained 5. Over-Familiarity 5. Not Sustained 6. Mill use of State Equipment or Property 6. Not Sustained Case Type: Administmive Inveatiption Incident SuDUDary Between January 1, 2014, and October 5, 2016, a cue n:cords technician alleJedly inappropriately acOCMed an inmate's confidential n:corda. In May 2014, sbe alleaecDyprovidcd an inmate unautborized sports insignia. From January 1, 2015, to June 16, 2016, the cue n:cords technician alleJedly shared unautborized fuod and petSonal care prod1Wia with inmates. Between February 10, 2015, and June 8, 2015, the cue n:corda technician alleaecDy allowed an inmate to touch ber leJ. On October 12, 2015, abe alleaecDy allowed an inmate access to the internet and his confidential recotds, allowed an inmate to touch her hair, pve unauthorized fuod to an inmate, and fililed to keep her pelliOilal property secure and inacOCMible to inmates. On October 5, 2016, the cue n:corda technician was alleaecDy dishonest durinJ an interview with the Office of Internal Aflitirs and on October 6, 2016, alleJedly fililed to appear fur an interview with the Office of the Internal Aflitirs. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with procedures sovcmint the pre-disciplinuy process becsuse the department attorney did not accurately assess the desdline to lake disciplinary action, &dequstely pn:pan: fur a witness interview, or provide tborough fuedback n:prdina the invcstiptive report. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating I IDaufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Within 11 calendar day1, did die dep.n-nt attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorrectly a~eadle deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry inlo die cue management ~Y~tem confirming die date of die reported IDcldent,dle date of d!K:overy, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any eueptlon1lo die deadliDe knOWD at die time? 1114 tkpartment attorney incOTTt!Ctly assas«< the deadline for taking disciplinary action as April29, 2017, when the deadline was actually May 1, 2017. o Did die departmeut attorney attend IDvatigative IDtervleM for key witlleaa 1o a.ea witlla1 demeanor and credibility? 1114 tkpartment attorney did not review a videa reronlillg prior to attending an interview to atkquately access the witness's credibility. o Within 11 calendar days following receipt of die lnveltlgatlve report, did die department atlomey review die report and provide appropriate 111bltantlve feedbael< addrealng die dloroughua1 and clarity oft he report? 1114 tkpartment attorney did not advise the special agent that two «<thibits were illcorrw;tly tkscribed. Case Dbp01ldon Tbe hiriDJ authority sustained the alleptiona, except accessiDJ an inmate's confidential n:corda, providiDJ an inmate with sports insignia, allowiDJ another inmate access to his confidential n:corda, and ahariDJpelliOnal property with inmates, and dismissed the cue recotds technician. Tbe OIG concum:d with the hiriDJ authority's determinationa. The case n:cotds technician filed an appeal with the State PC1!10nnel Boud but fililed to appear fur the pn:-bearint settlementconfen:noe. The &dminislnltive law judJe dismissed the appeal. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedun:a JOVerniDJ the disciplinary proceas. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 67 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014~~ 17-0021922-IR l. Diacriminatioll/Haruament l. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained 3. Diacriminatioll/Haruament 3. Unfuunded Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investiption Incident Summary On May 5, 2014, a lieutenant allegedly refcm:d to a tnmagenderfemale officer by a male pronoun, and a se!JCU!l allegedly failed to report the lieutenant's misconduct. In 2015, an officer allegedly made sexual comments to the tnmagender remale officer. On January 1, 2015, an associate wanlen allegedly refem:d to the tnmagender remale officer by a male pronoun, and a second lieutenant allegedly made an inappropriate gesture and asked the officer about ber gender confirmation surgery. In January 2016, two otber sergeants and an officer allegedly repeatedly refcm:d to the tnmagender female officer by a male pronoun. On September 12, 2016, while in the presence of other staff, a fourth sergeant allegedly referred to the tnmagender female officer by a male pronoun. On December 20,2016, th= other officetS allegedly made diBcourteous temarb about tnmagender female inmates in the presence of the tnmagenderfemale officer. On January 17, 2017, a sixth officer allegedly referred to the tnmagender remale officer by a male pronoun. On January 31, 2017, a seventh officer allegedly referred to the tnmagender female officer by a male pronoun. On February 19, 2017, a fifth se~JCU!l and an eighth officer allegedly refem:d to the tnmagender remale officer by a male pronoun. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the alleptiona against the associate warden, lieutenants, sergeants, and all oft he officers except the second officer. The hiring authority determined that the investiption conclusively proved the misoondut.lt may have occurred, but the second officer was not involved. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 68 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-06-24 15-0001603-IR 1. Other Failure of Good Behavior L Sustained Saluy Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Controlled Substances 2. Not Sustained 3. Other Failure of Good Behavior 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investiption Incident Sullllllary On June 24, 2015, an officer allesedly pabbed hia wife around the neck during a vclbal and ph)'llical altercation and wu arrested for domestic violence. On June 26, 2015, the officer allegedly possessed illegal fireanns and used steroids without a prescription. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pn:-dsciplinaryprocess because the Office ofI nternal Aflilinl refused to add a dishonestly alleption, the department attorney iii()Orrecdy assessed the deadline to take disciplinary action, and the Oflice ofI nternal Aflilinl did not timely complete the investiption. Due to the untimely investiption, the hiring authority wu prevented from mUing a determination reguding one oft he alleptions. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflic:ient InJuflic:icnt Anes1ment Questions • Did the Ofllee of In•m at Atrain make an appropriate inltW determination regarding the cue? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs did not add a dishoMSty aUegation tkspit4 evidenc4 the officu was allegedly tlish011est to outs ilk law enf~mt regardillg the altercation and the weapo113. a Did the department attorney -tJpnprWely determine that the de..tllne for taking .U.clpllnuy action u orlglntily ulealated 1honld be modified and coamlt with the OIG and 1pecW agent? Tlr4 department attorney incOTTt!Ctly assess«/ the deadline for taking disciplinary action as January 30, 2017, whm the deadlinef or one of the allegations was actually June 26, 2016. a Did the deadline for taking dildpllauy action or fillag clluge1 aplre before the invattgatlon wu completed? Tlr4 deadline for taking disciplinary action 011 011e of the allegations expi1fld 011 June 26, 2016, but the Offia ofI nternal Affairs did not complete its investigation until January 27, 2017, seven m011ths thereafter. a If the hlrlag authority determined that any of the allegatlou coald not be 1Ditained or that an accara• finding coald not be made regarding any allegation, wu that determination the re111lt of an inlllfllclent or untimely invatigatlon? Due to the Ulltimely investigation, the hiring authority was prevent«/f rom making a ddenllillation regarding 011e of the allegations. a Did the department conduct the pn-.U.Cipllnaryllnvertlgatlve phue with dne diligence? Tlr4 delay is address«/ in a p..Wr question. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation the officer possessed illegal firearms, but not the remaining alleptions, and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 18 months. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the pre-hearing settlement conference, the department learned a critical witness moved out ofs tate and would be unavailable to testify. Based on the witness unavailability, the depsrtment entered into a settlement agreement reducing the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for 14 months. Based on the witness unavailability, the OIG concurred with the setdemenl Disciplinary Anessment The department sufliciendy complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 69 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-07-00 16-0002013-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Summary On July 9, 2014, an officer allegccDy failed to disclose that his cousin wu incaroented in an institution. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures soverning the prc-diaciplin81y proceaa because the hiring authority delayed retming the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilin, and the department attorney incorrectly aaaesaed the deadline to take disciplinary action. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating I Insufficient Sufficient Anessment Questions • Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln wlthlo 45 caleodar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd oft he alleg«J misconduct on April25, 2016, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Offke ofI nternal Affairs until September 28, 2016,five months ofter the date ofd iscovery. • Within 11 ealcndar day1, did the department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer eorreetly a~ea the deadline for tU!Dg dbelpllnary aetioD and make UJ entry into the cue manage~M~~t l)'lltem confirming the date of the reported IDcldent, the date of d!K:overy, the deadline for tU!Dg dbelpllnary aetioD, UJd UJ)' eueptloD1 to the deadiiDe kncnm at the time? Th4 tkpartment attomey incorrectly asst!3sed the tJeadJjnefor taking disciplinary action as July 14, 2017, when the deadline was actually Apri/25, 2017. • Did the deparn.nt eond11ct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dDe diligence? Th4 tklay is addre3sed in a p..Wr question. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the alleption. The OIG concurred. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegationt Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-01-07 16-0001934-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. Contraband 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On Jamuuy 7, 2015, an officer allegccDyprovided his home address and bank infurmation to an inmate and introduced mobile phones into the institution. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures soverning the pre-disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating &Lfficicnt Sufficient I Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the alleptiona. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 70 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegationt Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-00~1 16-0000385-IR 1. DiscriminatiOII!Haruament 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Failure to Report 2. Sustained 3. Discrimination!Haruament 3. Not Sustained 4. Failure to Report 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuDUDary Between March 1, 2015, and September 30, 2015, a com:ctionalsuperviaing cook allegedly made inappropriate n:mub in the presence ofo ther employees and inmates and made selrual comments to an inmate. Between August 1, 2015, and September 30, 2015, a supervising com:ctional cook allegedly failed to take immediate and appropriate actions p~USuant to the departmenfs sCXWil hanlsament prevention policy and the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdures governing the pre-disciplinary process because the department attorney inoom:ctly assessed the deadline to take diBciplinuy action. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Insufficient Sufficient Anestment Questions • Within 11 calendar day1, did die dep.n-nt attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~eadle deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetlon and make an entry inlo die cue management ~Y~tem confirmiDg die date of die reported IDcldent,dle date of dbeovery, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetlon, and my eueptlon1lo die deadlllle knOWD at die time? 1114 tkpartment attorney incOTTt!Ctly identifi«J th4 tkadlinefor taking disciplinaty action agaillst th4 co778CtiOfiQ/ supervising coo/cas July 31, 2018, when the deadline was actually March 1, 2018. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation the com:ctional supervising cook madc inappropriate renwks in the presence of employees and inmates, but not the remaining allegation, and imposed a 5 pen:ent salary reduction fur six months. Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation the supervising com:ctional cook failed to take immediate and appropriate action pWlluant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, but not the remaining allegation, and issued a letter of instruction. Tbe OIG concum:d with the hiring authority's determinations. During the Sfoelly bearing, the oorn:ctional supervising cook accepted responsibility and articulated measures to stop similar behavior in the fUture. The department entered into a settlement agreement with the com:ctional supervising cook reducing the penalty to a 5 percent salary reduction fur four months. Based on the infurmation presented at the Skslly bearing, the OIG concum:d with the settlement Dbcipllnary Anessment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures gowming the disciplinary proce811. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 71 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegation1 Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~3~1 16-00017ro-IR 1. NesJ.ect ofDuty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Fail~m0 to Report 2. Unfuundcd Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On Manlh 1, 2015, a Board ofP arole Hearings supervising parole agent allegedly stated that a parole agent was a "mole" fur calling a whiadeblowcr hodine. The parole agent reported the matter to a plltlle adminilitrator, but the parole adminilitrator allegedly fililed to take appropriate meas=s reguding the alleged misconduct. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with pltKledures governing the pre-disciplinaly process becaw~e the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Offioe of Internal Affilirs. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Iaauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alkg«J mi3conducl on March 29, 2016, but the hiring authority did not n(er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until June 9, 2016, 72 dQ)I3 after the date of discovery. o Did tile departmeut coDduct tile pre-dixlplilluy/IDvelllgative phue w1t11 due dntgmee? 1'114 tklay is address«/ ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring authority dclemlincd that the investigation concluaivelyproved the misconduct attributed to the auperviaing plltlle agent did not occur. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to suatain the allegation against the plltlle adminilitrator. The OIG collCilfred with the hiring authority's determinations. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 72 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations F1ndlngs Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~-20 16-0001844-IR L Nepect of Duty L Unfounded No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. Other Fail= of Good Behavior 2. Unfounded Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Summary Between May 20, 2015, and June 10, 2016, a chiefd eputy wanlen and a staffs ervices manager Wenl allegedly involved in an inappropriate relationship. During that time, the staff services manager allegedly improperly hired employees and the chiefd eputy warden allegedly fililed to intervene to stop the alleged misconduct. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with procedures sovcming the pre-diaciplinuy process because the department attorney did not timely contact the special agent or the OIG, delayed assessing relevant dales, and omitted necessary infurmation fn:lm the case management system. Tbe hiring authority did not timely consult "'gulling the investigative findings. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating IDauffic:ient Sufficient Assessment Questions o Within 11 calcDdar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer correctly a~eadle deadline for taldDg dbclpllnary actloD and make UJ entry inlo die cue llllUiage_..t ~Y~tem confirming die dm of die reporiM IDcldent,dle dm of dlxovery, die deadline for taldDg dbclpllnary actloD, UJd UJ)' esceptlDollo die deadline lmOWD at die time? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey WIIS Q33ign«< em August 17, 2016, but did not make an e11t1y into the case management system Q33t13Sillg rekvant dates until September 19, 2016, 33 days aftu assignment hi addition, the e11t1y did not reftJret~Ce the deadline for talr:illg disciplinary action. • No later diUill cale:ndar day1 following Ullgmnentofdle cue, did die department atlomey contact die udgned special agent UJd die monllorlo diiCD11dle elementl of a dlorongh lnvelltlgatlon of die alleged milcondnct? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey WIIS Q33ign«< em August 17, 2016, but did not contact the special agent or th4 OIG w discuss the ekments of a thorough investigation until &ptember 13, 2016, 27 days after assigttment. • Did die HA timely CODIDlt wldl die OIG and department attorney {If applleablc), regardiDg die 1DIIlclcocy of the IDve~tlgatlon and die IDve~tlgatlve flndiDp? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkted its illwstigation and rqen-ed the matter w th4 hiring authority em March 10, 2017. Ho--. the hiring authorUy did not cONiult with the OIG and the dqlartment atiomey regarding the sufficiency ofth4 illwstigatiotl and the investigativef indings until March 29, 2017, 19 days thereajw. • Did die department conduct die pre-dilelpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dne dJUcence? Th4 tklays are address«/ ill prior questioNI. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority determined the investigation concii!Bively proved the misconduct did not occur. Tbe OIG concurred SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 73 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~8~ 17-0000102-IR L Disbonesty L Sustained Diami!aal Diami!aal 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained 3. Inaubonlinalion 3. Sustained 4. Neglect ofD uty 4. Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investiption Incident Sullllllary Between Ausust6, 2015, and December 20, 2016, an officer allegedly enpged in an overly liuniliar relationahip with an inmate, commUIIicated with the inmate by text meaaqe, and exchansed pbotographs with the inmate. On December 4, 2016, the officer allegecDy pemuaded two officen not to search the inmate's cell and tsmpered with a mobile pbone another officer discovered in the inmate's cell. On December 20, 2016, the officer allegecDy bltlUgbt three knives in ber vehicle onto institutional grounds. On Februuy 17, 2017, the officer allegedly refUsed to be interviewed by the Office ofI nternal Aflilinl. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dbp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegationa, combined the case with another case, and served the officer with a notice of diami!aal. Tbe OIG concurred However, the officer resigned before the diaeipliiiiiiY action took effect. Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the officel's official penonnei file indicating abe resigned pending diaciplinaly action. Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 74 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~8-10 16-000 1875-IR L Neglect of Duty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Diacowteoua Treatment 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On AIIJWit 10, 2015, fuur oflicCIS allegedly diaclosed to an inmate the sex crime histories ofo ther inmates. On May 19, 2016, one oft hose oflioeiS allegedly uaed a public addlall system to m&l<e a derogatory rererence to sex ofrendera, and a fifth officer allegedly told an inmate she wanted to bring in a security threat group to resuJate the sex offendCIS. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplinaly proceas because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Oflioe of Internal Aflilirs, and the department attorney did not enter critical dates in the case management system. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insufficient Suflklient Anessment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln within 45 caleDdar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd oft he alleg«J misconduct on Fdmmry 27, 2016, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until July 29, 2016,fJWJ months ofter the date ofd iscovery. o Within 11 calelldar day1, did the departme:nt attorney or employee relatlou offker correctly--the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actloD aDd make ao entry iDto the cue maoage~M~~t l)'ltem conflnniDg the date of the reported IDctdent, the date of d!K:overy, the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actloD, aod aoy eueptllm1 to the deadline kncnm at the time? Th4 tkpartment attomey did not malrie any entry ill the case management system colljirming mkwznt daw. • Did the deparn.nt cond11ct the pre-dbclpliDary/lnveltlgatlve phue with d..e diligence? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a p..Wr question. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to suatain the allegations. The OIG concumxl. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 75 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~8-17 16-0001906-IR L Dish011ealy 1. Sustained Diamiaaal Diamiaaal 2. Ovcr-Familiarily 2. Sustained 3. Neglect ofDuty 3. Sustained 4. Miauae of Stale Equipment or Property 4. Sustained 5. Ovcr-Familiarily 5. No Finding Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry Between August 17,2015, and December 10, 2016, an officer wu allegedly overly fiuniliar with an inmate and distracted fiom duly when she used a State teleph011e to call the inmate's wmk telephone hundreds of times. On June 10, 2016, the officer was allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant regarding the teleph011e calls. Between December 6, 2016, and December 10, 2016, the officer allegedly spote to the inmate on the telephone and on Januuy 5, 2017, was allegedly dishonest during an interview with the Office of Internal Affilira. Pre-ditcipllnary Attemnent Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilira, and the department attorney did not make a timely entry reganling the deadline to take disciplinary action or attend the officel's interview. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Imuffic:ient Sut'lk:icnt Anes1ment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~ wldlln 45 calendar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d of the allegal misconduct on June 10, 1016, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office oflntemal Affairs until August 11, 1016, 61 days after the date of discovery. o Wldlln 11 calendar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer correctly Uleadle deadline for tU!Dg dbclpllnary actloD and make an entry Into die cue management 11)'11tem conflnnlng the dm of the repor1ed IDcldent,dle dm of dbcovery, die deadline for tU!Dg dbclpllnary actloD, and any esception1 to the deadliDe lmOWD at die time? Tlr4 departmellt attorney was assign«/ September 23, 2016, but did not make an entry into the case management S)l3telll regtudillg the deadline for taking disciplinary action until NoW!IIIber 16, 1016, 54 days after assignment. o Did die department attorney attend IDvatigative IDtervleM for by wltoeaa to &Mea wltna1 demeanor and credlblllty? Tlr4 departmellt attorney did not attend the officer's interview. • Did die department conduct die pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelligative phue wl1h dne diligence? This delays are addre3s«< in prior que.stiOIIS. Case Dbp01ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and detennined diamiaaal was the appropriate penalty. Tbe OIG concumxl. However, the officer retired before diacipline could be imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's official peiSOnnel file indicating sbe retired pending disciplinuy action. Dbcipllnary Attessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sut'lk:ient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 76 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-11-17 16-0001798-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismiasal Dismiasal 2. Neslect ofD uty 2. Sustained 3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Sustained 4. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 4. Sustained 5. Dishonesty 5. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Summary Between November 17, 2015, and March 1, 2016, a department attorney allegecDy :fillaely documented he was using Family and Medical Leave Act leave to can: for hia son when, fur part oft hat time, he was actually participating in a reality television sbow in which he posed as an inmate in an out~f-11tale jail with other actual inmates, and did so without authorization. Between November 30, 2015, and May 27, 2016, the department attorney allegecDy fililed to notify the department regarding hia outside employment. Betlw:en Auauat 4, 2016, and September 26, 2016, the department attorney allegedly stated on national televiBion that hia job was "to go after correctional offiQCJ'S." Pre-ditclpllnary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-disciplinaly process because the assistant chief counsel did not malre an entry confirming rcle\'Ult dates in the case IIUIIUIJCment system. Pnleedural Rating Subltantive Rating Insufticient Sufficient Assessment Questions o Within 11 ealeDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar cornctly --the deadline for tHing dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDlo the cue management ll)'llem conflnniDg the date of the reporiM IDeldent, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tHing dlxlpliDary actilm, and any esceptioD11D the dead!IDe lmcnm at the time? Th4 a33i3tant chi#{ coU113el did not make any entry into the =e management 3)13tem confirming relevant dates. Case Dbposition The hiring authority suatained all allegations, except a dishonesty allegation with incorrect dates ofm iaooncluct, combined the matter with another disciplinary case against the department attorney, and dismiased him. The OIG concumxl. The department attorney did not file an appeal with the State PCiliOnnel Boanl. Dbclpllnary Anessment Ovenll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinuy process. Pnleedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 77 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-12-23 16-0001046-IR L Neglect of Duty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Diacowteoua Treatment 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Deoember 23, 2015, fiw oflioers allegedly brote an inmate's television and urinated and poured ooffee on the inmate's property. One oft he oflioers allegedly threatened to usault the inmate and taire his property ift he inmate reported the oflioers' misconduct. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures gowrning the prc-disciplirully proceas because the department attorney fililed to review and provide feedback to the Office oflntemal AfDirs reganling the draft inwstigative tq~orl. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insuflicient Suflklient Anessment Questions • Within 11 caleDdar day• following receipt of the IDvelllgatlve report, did the departmeut attorney review the report and provide ~roprlate nbltantive feedback addrellldng the thoroghneu and clarity oft he report? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs provided tlr4 draft investigative report to tlr4 department attorney on November 28, 2016. However, the dqJartmellt atWrney did not review orp rovide appropriate substantive feedback regordillg tlr4 rtfJOI1. o Did the department attorney pmvtde written confirmation 1IUIUII&rlzlng all erltkal dllelllllonl about the IDvatigatlve report to the 1pecW qeut with a eopy to the OIG? 1114 deportmellt ott0111ey did not provide written co'!finnatioll to tlr4 OIG summarizing critical discussiON! about tlr4 rqJOTt. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to sualain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 78 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~1-03 1~000763-IR L Weap011a 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Diacowteoua Treatment 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Januuy 3, 2016, an officer &llesedlypointed a Mini-14 rifle at an inmate, sestured profknely, and made inappropriate remarb about the inmate's religioua beliefil. Later that day, the officer allegedly pointed a Mini-14 rifle at a diffi:rentinmate and made inappropriate remarks about that inmate's religion. J>re.dlscipllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplirully p100eas because the Office of Internal Afl'ain did not make a timely determination n:ganling the hiring authority's request fur investigation. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insuftk:ient Suflklient Anessment Questions o Did the Offiee ofluternal Afrain DUke a deiHmlutioD regardiDg the cue withiD 30 aleDdar da:y~? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs Tt!C4ived the rtJqUt13tfor invt13tigation on February 4, 2016, but did not take action Ulltil March 9, 2016, 34 days after receipt oft he r«JUt13t • Did the dep.n-ut eoDdllct the pre-dbclp!IDary/IDvelltlgative phue with d..e dlllceuce? Th4 tklay is addrtl3sed ill a prior question. Case Dbp01ldon The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 79 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number AUegations Ftndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-{11~ 16-0001330-IR 1. Diacowteous Treatment 1. Sustamed Letter ofR eprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Thrcai/Intimidation 2. Not Sustained 3. Battery -On member oft he Department 3. Not Sustained 4. NeglectofDuty 4. Not Sustained S. Diacowteous Treatment S. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry On Janwuy S, 2016, an officer allegedly yelled at a se'l!eant and told the IIC'I!eant sbc did not like him On Janwuy 12, 2016, the officer allegedly told other officers not to answer a phone call from the se'I!Qnl On Janwuy 13, 2016, a lieutenant allegedly ftliled to take appropriate action wbcn these~ reported the officer's alleged misconduct. On February 10, 2016, these~ allegedly blocked a doorway the officer was trying to walk throush, and the officer allegedly pushed, ydled, and Cllllled at the IIC'I!eanl Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbc department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinaly process bec&WIC the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on January 13, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the O.ffice ofI nternal Affairs until April 7, 2016, IU days afW the dat4 of discovery. o Did tile departmeut coDduct tile pre-dixlpliDary/IDvelligative phue w1t11 due dlllgmee? 1114 tklay is addressed in a prim queston. Case Disposition Tbc hiring authority sustained allegations that the officer cursed at the IIC'I!eant and told otbcr officem not to ansW\lf a phoDe call from the sergeant, but not the remaiDiDg allegations, and issued a letter of reprimand. Tbc hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the lieutenant and IIC'I!Cant. The OIG con~ with the hiring authority's determinations. The officer filed an appeal with the State PCiliOnnel Board. Prior to the State PelliODDCI Boanl proceedings, the department entered into a settlement apement with the officer agreeing to "'move the letter of reprimand from the officer's official pemonnel file after six months. Tbc OIG did not concur with the settlement. HoMver, the settlement terms did not merit a higbcr level of review because the penalty ~ed the same and the letter ofr eprimand could still be used forpu1p0aes ofpmJ"'SsiVC discipline. Disciplinary Anessment Tbc department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinuy process because the department ente~ into a settlement agreement without a change in circumstances. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o H there wu a ~eUiemeut qreemeut, wu tile HU!emeut coomteut w1t11 tile DOM facton? 1114 tkpartment entered into a seltU..ent agreement willlout identifying any new evidence, flaws, or ri3lr3 to justifY the seta-ent o H the peDalty wu -dlfled by departmeut actlou or a HU!emeut qreemeut, did OIG CODCllr wltll the modlfleatiou? 1114 tkpartment entered into a seltU..ent agreement willlout identifying any new evidence, flaws, or ri3lr3 to justifY the seta-ent SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 80 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~1-18 1~000677-IR L Diahoneaty 1. Not Suatained Letter ofinatruction Letter ofinatruction 2. Diacowteoua Treatment 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Januuy 18, 2016, an offioer and a se,.,ant allegedly &lilled and fousht with each other, C&UBing the offioer to filii, and both fillllely tqJOrled the alten:ation did not involve physical oont.:t. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary prooess becauae the specW agent did not condud the investigation in a timely manner or adequately cooperate with the OIG. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inallfficient Inaufficient Anes1ment Questions o Did the lpCdal agent cooperate with aDd provide eontiDul real-time oonlllltation with the OIG? Th4 special agem conduel«< the last witM3s interview 011 JUM 15, 101 6; but did notp rovilk the OIG with a draft report Ulllil December 14, 1016, six mot~ths later. 171e OIG asked the special agent to provide an t!3timate of when the report would be complet«J on multiple occasions, without receiving a rt!3ponse. • Did the dep.n-nt eoadllct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dDC dJUcence? Th4 special agem complet«< the last witM3s interview 011 JUM 15, 1016; but did notp rovilk the illvt!3#gative report to the hiring authority until December 11, 1016, more than six months thereafter. 17le sergetJnt was redirected to another posi#011 during that entire time. Case Dbposltion The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegationa. HOM:ver, the hiring authority issued the serJCanl and offioer letters of instruction to address the unprofessional behavior. The OIG concum:d with the hiring authority's detenninations. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 81 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-«2-{11 16-0000925-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Suslained Letter of Reprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sualained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On February 1, 2016, a aergeant allegedly aubmiUed two conflicting reporta reganling his obserwtions ofa uae-of-furoe incident. A lieutenant allegedly ruled to adequately review the documents tbat contained the sCIJCP!l's oonfficting reports. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the department attorney incorrectly assessed tbe deadline fur talring disciplinaly action. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insuflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions • Within 11 ealeDdar day1, did tile departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offleer cornctly Ulal tile deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry !DID tile cue management IIYitem eonflnniDg tile date of tile reported Incident, tile date of dlxovery, tile deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any esceptlnn11D tile deadline lmOWD at tile time? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney incorrectly asstJSs«i the tJeadJjtJefor talring disciplinary action as February 12, 2017, when the lkadUM was actually February 1, 2017. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained an allegation the aergeant was negligent, but not tbat he was dishonest, and issued a letter of reprimand. Tbe hiring authority sualained the allegation against the lieutenant and issued a letter ofi nstruction. Tbe OIG eoneurred with the hiring authority's detenninations. Tbe aergeant did not file an appeal with tbe State Pen10nnel Boanl. Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiendy complied with policies and procedures governing tbe disciplinaly prooeas. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating &lfficicnt Sufticient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-{12-01 16-0001632-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Not Sualained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Misuae of Authority 2. Not Sualained 3. NeglectofDuty 3. Not Sualained 4.Medieal 4. Not Sualained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary Between Febnwy 1, 2016, and Maroh 14, 2016, an officer and a psychologist allegedly fililed to report their romantic relationship. On February 1, 2016, the officer allegedly impeded an inmate's access to mental health care with the psychologist. On February 16, 2016, tbe officer allegedly argued with tbe inmate, resulting in the inmate attacking tbe officer. On Maroh 14,2016, the officer allegedly told a aergeant he did not want to p\IQUC chaiJCS against the inmate due to the officCJ's relationship with tbe psychologillt. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dsciplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating &lfficicnt Sufficient I Case Disposition Tbe hiring authorities found insufticient evidence to sua lain tbe allegations. Tbe OIG coJJCUrred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 82 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-02-10 16-0002023-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Salary Reduction No Penalty Imp011ed 2. DW1011esty 2. Not Sustained 3. Over-Familiarity 3. Not Sustained 4. Neglect ofD uty 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investigation Incident Sununary On February 10, 2016, an officer allegedly communicsted with an inmate'a sister on a social media M:baite. On August 4, 2016, the officer allegedly alloM:d the inmate to circumvent a nndom urine collection, allOM:d the inmate to tamper with the urine aample, and was diBh011est when he claimed he observed the inmate provide a urine sample. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilirs. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating lnallfficient Sufficient A11e11ment Questions o Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of IDternal Affidrl wlthiD 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d of the alleged misconduct on February 10, 2016, but the hiring aulilority did not rqer the matter to the Office ofI ntemal Affairs until October 13, 201 6; eight months after the date ofd iscovery. o Did die department eond11ct die pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dDe diligence? The delay is addressed ill a prior qU&1tion. Case Dbpoaltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer communicated on a social media M:baile with an inmate's sillier, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed aS percent saluy reduction fur 18 months. The OIG coiiCUI'red. At the Slrelly hearing, the officer presented new infurmation establishing the communication occurred as a result ofmulual mends on the social media website and befure the officer learned the person with whom he communicsted was an inmate's relative. Baaed on the new infurmation, the hiring authority withdrew the disciplinuy action. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's decision based on the new information. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 83 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-22 16-0001259-IR 1. Failure to Report Use ofForoe l.Suslained Letter of Instruction Letter of Instruction 2. U=uonable Use ofForoe 2. Not Sustained 3. Failure to Report Use ofForoe 3. Not Sustained 4. Nepeet ofD uty 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On February 22, 2016, an officer allegedly struck an inmate four times with a baton when the inmate posed no thm!t. 'l'hnle otheroflicem alleaedly witnessed the incident and fililed to report iL An observation officer allegedly fililed to observe any part oft he incident. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufliciatt Case Dbposition The hiring authority sustained an allegation against one oft he oflicem for failing to timely submit a report and issued letter of instruction. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Disciplinary Anessment Ovenll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufliciatt Incidmt Date OIG Case Number AUegations F1ndings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-02-26 16-000 1874-IR 1. Use ofForoe 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Diacowteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On February 26, 2016, an officer allegedly choked and hit an inmate, and directed a racial slur toward the inmate. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Insufficient Sufliciatt Auessment Questions • Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln within 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on March 10, 2016, but the hiring authority did not n(er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until July 29, 2016, more than four months after the date ofd iscovery. • Did the department condnct the pre-dbclpltnuyllnvelligative phue with dne dDigence? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Dbposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 84 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-{11 16-{1002 119-IR 1. Diahoncsty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On Manlh 1, 2016, a seiJCUII allesedly instructed an officer to sign Prison Rape Fliminstion Act memonnduma as the investigator when he was not the inveatigating officer. Between Manlh 7, 2016, and August 19, 2016, the officer allegedly signed Prison Rape Fliminstion Act memo181ldUIDll when he was not the inwstigating officer. Between Manlh 7, 2016, and Ausust 19, 2016, an investigative services unit lieutenant allegedly failed to supervise the officer and a second officer who wm: improperly drafting Prison Rape Eliminstion Act memonnduma. On August 19, 2016, the second officer allegedly wrote an inaccwate memo181ldum regarding the interview of an inmate who alleged a physician sexually assaulted him, and the first officer allegedly signed and submitted the memo181ldum as ifi t was hia own. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process becauae the hiring autbority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofintemal Affails, and the Office ofintemal Affails initially failed to add a dishonesty allegation and only did so when the OIG sought a bigher lewI of review. The department attorney incorrectly assessed the deadline to take disciplinary action and provided poor legal advice to the hiring authority. The hiring authority fitiled to sua lain an allegation despite sufficient evidence oft he misconduct. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient InJufl'icient Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred 111 the Offlee of IDtemal AffUn within 45 caleDdar days of the date of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on August 19, 1016. but the hiring authority did 1IOl "'!fer the matter to the Off~ee oflfllenlal Affain Ulltil November 10, 1016. 83 days after the date ofd iscovery. o Wo111d the ~roprlate bdtW determiDatlon or reeonidderatioD determiDatlon have been made by the Olllee ofllltemal A1laln wltho11t OIG lntuvcntlon? Dt!3pite repeated OIG recommendattons, the Off~ee oflntemal Affain Central lntalre Unit senior special agents and special a~in cJrarge refosed to add a dishont!3ty allegation when the evidena showed that Q1l offker inientionally draftedf alse documents indicating he hadp ers011Qily conducted inierviews when he had nol. The Office oflntemal Affain headquarters chi<( reviewed the case after the Off~ee oflntemal Affain Central lntalre PQ11el meeting and added the allegation. o Within 11 calelldar day1, did the departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offker correctly--the deadline for tUillg dlxlpllnary actloD ud make Ul eutry ln111 the cue mmage_..t ll)'lltem confirming the date of the reporiM lnddeut, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tUillg dlxlpllnary actloD, md my esceptlon1 111 the deadline lmcnm at the time? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney incOTTt!Ctly asst!3sed the deadlinef or taking disciplinary action as October 5, 1017, when the deadline was actually August 19, 1017. o Did the deparn.nt attorney provide appropriate legal eoUllltatioD to the HA regarding the 111llldeney of the lnvatlgatlon ud lnveltlgatlve flndlnp? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney recommended the hiring autharity nat sustoin the allegation agaillst the lieutenant despite a preponderQfiCe ofe vidence supporting the allegation. o Did the HA who partidpated In the flndlnp eoofereliCe ~roprlately determiDe the Invatigatlve flndlnp for eaeh tilegatloll? Tlr4 hiring authority did nat sustoin the allegation agaillst the lieutenant despite a preponderQfiCe ofe vidence supporting the allegation. o Did the deparn.ut eolld11ct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelllgatlve phase with du dlllgeliCe? Tlr4 lklay is addressed in a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ldon The hiring autbority round insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the biriDg authority's determinations as to the seiJCUII and officCJS but not with the decision reganliDg the lieutenant as he wu responsible for ensuring the accunwy of the Prison Rape Eliminstion Act inveatigative memmandums and he failed to do so. Howewr, the OIG did not seek a higher level of review as the lieutenant had already been removed from the investigative services unit. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 85 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-03-{13 16-0001261-IR L Controlled Subatana:s L Not Sustained No Penalty Impoaed No Penalty Impoaed Case Type: Administnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On Man:h 3, 2016, an officer allegedly tested positive for an illepl hallucinogenic dnJa. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The deputment did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplinaly process because the special agent did not provide the OIG adequate time to .mew the investigative report. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating I Insuflieient Suflieient Anessment Questions • Upo11 completion of the IDveltigatltm, wu a draft eopy of the IDvatlgative report timely fonJarded to the OIG to allow for feedback before It wu forwarded to the HA or pmNCating ageaey? 1'114 speciol agent provid«< th4 rq;oTt to the hiring authority bqo1fl rt!IC4iving th4 OIG's feedback. Case Disposition The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The officer denied knowingly consuming the drug and presented a dcclanltion ftom hia wife indicating that she placed the dnJa, without the officer's knowledge, in a beverage he drank. Baaed on this infunnation, the OIG concurred with the hiring authority's finding. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-03-{17 16-0001763-IR L Traffic Related Incident L Sustained Diamiaaal Dismissal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On Man:h 7, 2016, a department attorney drove a rentsl vehicle while on duty and allegedly became diBU.:ted and collided with another vehicle. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The deputment did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplinaly process because the assistant chief counsel did not confirm relevant dates in the case llllllllliement system Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insuflieient Suflieient Anes1ment Questions • WlthiD 11 ealeadar day1, did the department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer eorreetiy Ulea the deadliDe for tUIDg dbelpllnary aetlon aad make aa eatry IDto the eue maaage~M~~t IYIRm conflrmlag the date of the reported lacldeat, the date of dbeovery, the deadliDe for tUIDg dbelpllnary aetlon, aad aay eueptlon1 to the deadllae knowo at the time? 1'114 assistont chi#{ cotmSel did not make all)' entty into the case management system eo~~jirming relewmt date3. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation, combined this cue with another disciplinary case against the department attorney, and dismissed him. The OIG concurred The department attorney did not file an appeal with the State PCJSOnnel Boanl Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diBciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Suflieient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 86 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-14 16-0001771-IR 1. Diahoncaty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident Summary On Manlh 14, 2016, an officer allesedly failed to report her peace officer identification card wuloat. On May 1, 2016, the officer wu allegedly dishonest in a memorandum she submitted to a lieutenant "'pnling the card. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with pltKledurea soverning the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Af!ilirs. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions • Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alkg«J mi3conducl on April U, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rr;fer the matter to the Offke ofI nternal Affairs until June 1, 2016, 48 days after the date of di3covery. • Did tile departmeut coDduct tile pre-dixlpliDary/IDvelllgative phue w1t11 due dntgmee? 1'114 tklay was addressed by a prior que3tion. Case Dbp01ltlon The hiring authority round insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concuned. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 87 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-03-17 16-0001634-IR 1. Nepect ofD uly LSustained Salaly Reduction Modified Saluy Reduction 2. Nepect ofD uly 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary Between March 17,2016, andApril14, 2016, anofficerallegedlyfililed to maintain the safctyandaecurityataevcnl inmate parole bearings and on March 17,2016, andApri114, 2016, allesedly felluleep while providing security at inmate parole hearings. On April 12, 2016, the officer allesedly fililed to search an inmate's property befure allowing the inmate into a parole bearing. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with procedures soveming the pre-disciplinaly process because the Office ofintenW Affairs declined to open an inwstigation and the hiring authority did not timely conduct the inwstigatiw filldinga conference orsign the furm documenting the inwstigatiw filldinga. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauffic:ient Suflk:icnt Anessment Questions o Did the Ofllee of In•m al Aft'ain make an appropriate inltW determlnatlnn regarding the eue? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs decid«< not to opm afuU invt!3tigation '"'""though~ W<~Fe significant qutl3tions regarding th4facts and th<~Te were other witnt!3Ses pre3ent during the hearings, ill eluding members of th4 public, that may have provid«< relevant ill. formation. o Did the HA tm.ly conaalt with the OIG and dep.rtment attorney (If applleable), regarding the nfficlency of the invatlgatlnn and the invatlgatlve flndlnp? Th4 Of!ic4 oflnWrnal Affairs returned th4 case to the hiring authority on May 25, 2016. However, th4 hiring autharity did not consult with the OIG and the tkpartment attorney regarding thesufficiencyofth4evidellceandthejilldillgs until July 13, 2016, 49days ~aftu. o Did the department cond11ct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dDe dJUcence? One tklay is address«/ ill a jJTWr question. In addition, th4 iiiW!3tigative frndillgs conf<~Tet~Ce tookp lace ill July 2016, but the hiring authority did not sign th4 form documenting th4 iiiW!3tigativefrndillgs untilFebnJary 3, 2017, more than sa months later. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations, except that the officer fililed to aean:h the inmate, and imposed aS percent saluy reduction fur six monthB. Tbe OIG collCUI!ed. Tbe officer filed an appeal with the State Peraonnel Board. Prior to the State PCDonnel Boanl proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to aS percent aaluy reduction fur three months because the officer expressed rem0111e and accepted responsibility at the Skelly bearing. Tbe OIG concwred baaed on the fkctorsleamed at the Skelly bearing. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures soveming the disciplinuy process because the department did not timely conduct the disciplinary findings conference or aerw the disciplinary action in accordance with policy. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauffic:ient Suflicient Anestment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conaalt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHcable) regarding dlxlpllnary detumlnatlnu prior to making a final dect.loo? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complet4d its iiiW!3tigation and rqerred the matter to the hiring authority on May 25, 2016. However; th4 hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and the tkpartmmt attomey regarding the disciplinary tktermillatiom until July 13, 2016, 49 days thereajitJr. o Wu the disciplinary phue condDC~ with dDe dJUcence by the department? Th4 tkpartment did not serve the disciplinary action withi1130 days ofth4 tkcision to take disciplinary action. The hiring authority conducted th4 disciplinary frndillgs conj<~Tet~Ce on July 13, 2016. However; th4 departmmt did not serve th4 disciplinary action until February 14, 2017, seven montlu later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 88 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-00-21 16-0001802-IR 1. Diahoncaty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. U=uonable Use ofForce 2. Not Sustained 3. Failure to Report Use ofF orce 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On Man:h 21, 2016, an officer &llesedly violently pushed an inmate, deployed pepper spray di~ectly into the inmate's ~s. and dishonestly reported the illcident. A seoond officer allegedly fililed to report the finlt officer's unreaaonable uae off orce. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinuy process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Af!ilirs. Procedural Rating Substantiw Rating IDaufficient Sufficient I Anestment Questions • Wu the matter referred to the Oftlee of IDtemal Affairl within 45 ealcDdU' da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? 1'114 tkpartment karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on March 21, 2016, but the hiring authority did not n(er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until June 21, 2016, 92 days after the dat4 of discovery. o Did the departmeut eoDduet the pre-dbclpltDary/IDvelligative phue with due d111geuee? 1'114 tklay is addressed ill a p..Wr question. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG ooncurred. Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegationt Ftndings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-00-22 16-0001631-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. NesJecl ofD uty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident Summary On Man:h 22, 2016, an officer &llesedly failed to report that an inmate pushed him. On Man:h 28, 2016, the officer &llesedly fillaely claimed the inmate attacked and punched him, resulting in injury. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Substantiw Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG ooncurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 89 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-M-10 16-0001726-IR 1. Unn:uonable Uae ofForoe 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Fail= to Report Use ofF orce 2. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBII8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On Apri110, 2016, fuur officers allesedlypunched an inmate numerous times during a cell exlnlction. A fifth officer allesedly fililed to report the force he witnessed. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures sovcming the prc-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings conference, and the department attorney did not Q.ke a timely entry into the case ~ement system. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insufficient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Within 11 caleDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar cornctly --the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDlo the cue management ll)'ltem eonflnniDg the date of the reporiM IDetdent, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any escept1Do11D the deadliDe lmcnm at the time? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney Wll3 assigned June U, 2016. but did 110t makie an entry into the case ma110gemelllt system regordillg the deodlillef or taking discipUIIOIJI action ulllil October 5, 2016. 113 days after assignment o Did the HA timely eoiUIIllt with the OIG and dep.rtmnt attorney {If applleablc), regardiDg the 1PIIlelcoey of the IDvatlgatlon and the IDvatfcatlve fiDdiDp? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkt4d its investigation and referred the matter to the hiring authority on October 12, 2016. However; the hiring authority did 110t cONJult with the OIG and the departmDJt attorney 1flgordillg the sufficiency oft he investigation and the illvestigativejilldillgs until Deumber 21, 2016, 70 daJ13 the1flajter. o Did the department eond11et the pre-dlxlpliDary/lnveltfcatlve phue wlth dDe d111genee? Th4 tklays are addressed ill prior questioNI. Case Disposition The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to suallin the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 90 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-{11 16-000177S-IR 1. Use afForce 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Suatained Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident Summary On May 1, 2016, a SCIJCanl allegedly inappropriately struck an inmste in the knee with his bston and failed to accllllltely report when: he struck the inmste. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pn:-dsciplinaryproeess beeauae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Aff'aiJll and the Office ofinternal Af!iliiS did not include a dishonesty allegation. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insuflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions • Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alkg«J mi3conducl on May 1, 20115, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Off~ a of Internal AffaiT3 until June 17, 201 IS, 47 days after the date of di3covery. • Did tile Offiee of lutem al Aft't in DUke an appropriate illi lia! determillatiou regardillg tile eue? 1'114 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs decided not to add a dishonesty alkgatjonlkspite sujfident evidence to suppart the allegation. o Did tile dep.n-ut eoDdllet tile pre-dixlpliDary/IDvelltlgative phue witll d..e dlllgeuee? 1'114 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Dlaposltion The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-{12 16-0001756-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Administ181ive Investigation Incident Summary On May 2, 2016, three officen allegedly failed to respond for 15 mirwtes to inmates yelling for help while two inmates fought in a cell. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pn:-dsciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dlaposltion The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 91 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Ftndings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-06 16-0001729-IR L Other Failure of Good Behavior L Unfounded No Penalty Impoaed No Penalty Imposed 2. Misuae of State Equipment or Property 2. Unfounded Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investiption Incident Sununary On May 6, 2016, a parole agent allegedly drove a State vehicle to a shopping m.n to meet with a person known to be on~ probation. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tile department did not comply with procedurea soverning the pre-diaciplinaly process becaw~e the department attorney neglected to timely prepare, thereby delaying the investiptive findings conference. Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 Illlllfficient Sufficient Atse11ment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG and departmut attorney {If applleablc), regarding the lllllldCDey of the lnvatlgatlon and the lnvatlgatlve flndlnp? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkud its investigation and "!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authority on JafiUJJry 11, 2017. The hiring authority scheduled the c0113ultation for February 3, 201 7, but the department attorney was not JMpared to proceed. The hiring authority c0113ult4d with the OIG and the depaTtment attorney regllTrlillg the suffkimcy oft he illvt!3tigation and the illvt!3tigativejilldillgs on February 16, 2017, 36 tlaJ13 ofter completion oft he illvt!3tigation. o Did the department condnct the pn-dbclpllnaryllnvelllgatlve phue with dne diligence? Tlr4 department atiomey did nat timelyJ Mparefor the case consultation with hiring authorily and the OIG, resultillg ill a delay. Case Dbposition Tile hiring authority detennined that the inveatigation conclusively proved the misconduct did not occur. Tile OIG concuned. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allt«ationt Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-05-09 16-0001772-IR L Dishonesty L Not Sustained No Penalty Impoaed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Not Sustained 3. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sununary On May 9, 2016, outside law enfurcement arrested an officer after the officer allesedly engaged in a physical alten:ation with biB girlfriend Tile officer wu aiBo allesedly discourteous and dishonest to outside law enfurcement and fitiled to comply with OldeiS wued by outside law enforcement, resulting in the use of force. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Tile department did not comply with procedurea soverning the pre-diaciplinaly process becaw~e the department did not modify the deadline to tal<e diBciplinaly action. Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 Illlllfficient Sufficient Atses1ment Questions o Did the department attorney -tJpnprlately determine that the de..tllne for taking .U.clpllnuy action u originally calealated 1honld be modified and con1111t with the OIG and 1pecW agent? After an exception to the deadline to take disciplillary action C«ZSed to appl)l the department attorney did nat modify the deadlille for takillg disciplinary action. Case Dbposition Tile hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concumxl. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 92 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-20 16-0001879-IR l. Unreuonable Use ofForce l.Suslained Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Failun: to Report Use ofF orce 2. Sustained 3. Diahoneaty 3. Not Suatained 4. Failun: to Report 4. Not Suatained S. Failun: to Report Use ofF orce S. Not Suatained 6. Diaoou.rfeoua T"'atment 6. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8live Inveatigation Incident Sullllllllry On May 20, 2016, an officer allesedlypuabed an inmate out of a building, cauaing the inmate to fall to the sround, and lililed to tqlllrt the use off orce. Three other officers allegedly observed the use of force and lililed to report it. One oft he ~e officers wu allegedly diBcourteous to the inmate. On Iuly 10,2016, another oft he three officen wu allegedly diBhonest to a lieutenant about the incident. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tile department did not comply with procedures soverning the pre-disciplinary proceas because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on May 20, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1flfer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until August 3, 2016, mOTe than two months after the date ofd iscovery. o Did tile departmeut eoDduct tile pre-dixlplilluy/IDvelligative phue w1t11 due dlllgeuce? 1114 tklay is addressed in a p..Wr question. Case Disposition Tile hiriDg authority sustained the allegations agaiDst the first officer and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction fur six months. Tile hiring authority suatained an allegation that a second officer witneased but fililed to report the uae offultle, and served the officer a letter of"'Primand. Tile hiriDg authority fuund insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations against the remaiDing officers. Tile OIG concumd with the hiriDg authority's detenniDations. During the Slrelly bearing, the first officer accepted "'aponsibility and expressed remorse. Based on this new iDftmDation, the department ente~ into a settlement a&""ement "'cb:ing the penalty to a 10 pen:ent salary reduction fur ~e months. Tile OIG concurred based on the fiwtors learned at the Slrelly bearing. Tile second officer did not file an appeal with the State PeraonDel Board. Disciplinary Anessment Tile department sufficiently complied with policies and procedun:s governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-20 17-0021800-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Suslained Salary Reduction No Penalty Impoaed 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Sualained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On May 20, 2016, two officen allegedly placed two handcuffed inmates in a shower stall, unsupervised for more than fuur bows, without access to water or a bathroom, and ftliled to complete holding cell logs. A sergeant allegedly fililed to properly supervise the ofliceiS. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process becauae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofI nternal AffaiiS or conduct the investigatiw findings conference and the Office ofI nternal AffaiiS refUsed to open an inwstigation, resulting in unsupported findings. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflicient lnJufficicnt Anessment Questions o Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~~ wldllo 45 calendar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on May 20, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until January 2 7, 2017, eight months after the date of discovery. o Did die Offiee of lutem al Afl'aln make m appropriate illilial. determillatiou reganiillg die cue? Th4 Office oflnWrnal Affairs lY{used to open an iiiV«StigatiOII to 1fl30/ve conflicts ill the evidence. Th4 departmmt's/ailu1fl to conduct an iiiV«StigatiOII result4d ill the hiring authority serving disciplinary actions on a sergeant and two officen who did not commit misconduct. o Did die HA tm.Iy co....,lt wldl die OIG &Dd departmut attorney {If applleablc), regardillg the DlllclcDcy of the illvatlgatlou &Dd the illvatfcatlve filldillp? Th4 Office ofI nternal Affairs returMd the case to the hiring authority on February 15, 201 7. However; the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and the department attonrey reganlillg the sufficjency of the evidence ond thefilldill&r until May 5, 2017, 79 days the1flajter. o Did die deparn.ut coDd11ct die pre-dbclpliD.ary/IDveltlgatlve phue wl1h dDe dlllgeuce? Th4 tklays a1fl addressed ill prior questions. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegations the ofliQCIS ftliled to supervise the restrained inmates and provide &CQCSS to a bathroom and running water, but not the remaining allegation, and issued letteiS ofr eprimand. The hiring autbority also sualained the allegation the sergeant ftliled to supervise the offiQCIS, but not the other allegation, and imposed aS percent salary reduction fur one month. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. At the SUlly hearings, the ofliQCIS and sCIJC&IIl, who had not been interviewed, credibly denied the allegations. As a result, the hiring authority withdrew the disciplinary actions against the ofliQCIS and SCIJCanl. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninations based on the infurmation learned at the Slr8lly hearing and ambiguities in the institution's local opellltingprocedures reganling using showen as holding cells. Dbcipllnary Anessment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures sowmina the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 94 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-05-20 17-(1022394-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On May 20, 2016, a lieutenant allegedly fillsely prepan:d two furma stating an inmate n:fuaed to appear at two rules violation bearings. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing tbe prc-diaciplirully process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to tbe Office of Internal Affilirs. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauffic:ient Sufficiatt Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affalrll wlthl11 45 ealeDd..-da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmetll karMd of the alleged misconduct on July 10, 1016, but the hiring authorily did not rqer the matter to the Offic4 oflntemal Affairs until March 19, 1017, eight months later. o Did the departme11t coDdDct the pre-dbclpltDary/IDvertlgative phue wtth du dlllgmee? Th4 tklay is addre3a«< in a p..Wr quution. Case Dlsp01ltlon Tbe hirillg authority round illaufficient evidence to sustaiD the allegations. The OIG concumxl. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 95 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-23 16-0001812-IR l. Dillboneaty l. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Unreuonable Use ofForoe 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Investigation Incident Suaunary On May 23, 2016, two oflicCill allegedly deployed pepper sptay on an inmate when the inmate posed no imminent threat. The twc offiOCill and a third offioer allegedly MOre dishonest in their reporting of the incident Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tile department did not comply with prooedures governing the pre-diaciplinuy process becaw~C the hiring authority did not timely oonduct the investigative findings oonference or adequately coopemte with the OIG. The depsrtment attorney did not make a timely entry into the case management system oonfinning relevant dates. Plveedural Rating Subltandve Rating lnallffic:ient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Within 11 ealcDdar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~ea die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry inlo die cue management ~Y~tem confirming die date of die repor1ed IDcldent,dle date of d!K:overy, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any eueptlon1lo die dead!IDe knOWD at die time? Tlr4 departmellt attorney Wll3 assigned August 1, 1016, but did not make an entry into the case management SJ13teltl reganling the deadline for taking disciplinary action until September 19, 1016, 59 days after assignment. o Did die HA timely conmlt wldl die OIG and department attorney (If applleable), reganilllg die nfficleney of the IDvatigatlon and die IDvatlgatlve fiDdiDp? Tlr4 Office ofI nwrnal Affairs compklted its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority on November 16, 1016. However, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and departmellt attorney reganling the suffiCiency oft he inW!3tigation and the invt!3tigativefindin&r until December 16, 1016, 30 daJ13 thereafter. • Did die HA cooperate with and provide contlllul real-time c0011lltation with die OIG dlroDghoDt the pre-ilbelpliDary/lnvatlgatlve phue? Tlr4 hiring authority conducted the invt!3tigative findin&r conference on December 1 6, 1016, but did notp rovide the OIG with the form documenting the inW!3tigative flllliin&r until January 13, 1017, and only after repeated requt!3ts. o Did die dep.n-nt cond11ct die pre-dbelpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dDe diligence? Tlr4 delays were addressed in prior qut!3tions. Case Dlsp01ldon Tile hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to sustain the alleptions. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 96 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-28 16-0002031-IR 1. Diahoncaty l.Suslained Dismissal Diamiaaal 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Sustained 3. Diahoncaty 3. Not Sustained 4. Nepect ofD uty 4. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Inveatiption Incident Summary On May 28, 2016, two officen allegedly failed to ensure the well-being of an inmate and lillaely documented conducting safety checks. A third officer also allegedly fililed to ensure the well-being oft he inmate and failed to properly conduct safety checks. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The depsrtment did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofinternsl Affilirs and did not timely conduct the inveatiptiw filldinga conference. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insuflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alkg«J mi3conducl on May 28, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1flfer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until October 10, 2016, m01fl than four months after the date ofd iscovery. o Did tile HA timely collftlt wltll tile OIG uut departmnt attomey (If applieable), regarding the nfficleDey of the lnvatigatlnn uut the lnvatlgalive findings? 1'114 Office ofI nternal Affairs completed its inW!3tigation ond rqerred the matter to the hiring authority on March 16, 2017. However; the hiring authority did not cONJult with the OIG and tkpartment attorney regarding the suffiCiency oft he inW!3tigation ond the investigative findings until April 7, 2017, 22 days thereafter. o Did tile department condnct tile pre-dixlpllnuyllnvelligalive phue wltll dne dntgenee? 1'114 tklays a1ft addressed in p..Wr questions. Case Dbp01ltlon The hiring authority sustained the alleptions qainst the lint officer and detennined diamiaaal was the appropriate penalty. However, the officer resigned before disciplinary action could be imposed The hiring authority placed a letter in the officet's official penonnel file indicating he resigned pending disciplinary action. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the alleptiona apinst the second and third officen. The OIG oonwrred with the hiring authority's determinations. Dbcipllnary Anessment Ownll, the department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures sowrning the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 97 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016~03 16-0002099-IR 1. Over-Familiarity 1. Sustained Suapension Suapension 2. Misuse of State Equipment or Property 2. Sustained 3. Dishonesty 3. Not Sustained 4. Misuse of Authority 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Investigation Incident Suaunary Between Iune 3, 2016, and September 30, 2016, a fea(:ber allegedly used a State a oomputer to send and reoeive non-work related email messages. Between Iuly 26, 2016, and September 30, 2016, the teacher allegedly enpged in an overly filmiliar relationship with an inmate. On September 19,2016, the fea(:ber allegedly persuaded the inmate to write a fillse and threatening letter against her. On Oetober 3, 2016, the teacher was allegedly dishonest to a lieutenant regarding the matter. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Subltllntlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dbp01ldon The hiring authority sustained the allegations the teacher misused a State computer and was in an overly liuniliar relationship with an inmate, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed a 36- working-Goy suspension. The OIG COIICUI"red with the hiring authority's determinations. The teacher did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Boani Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufliciendy complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 98 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~~ 16-0001854-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On June 4, 2016, two of!iQCIS allesedly left cleaning chemicals in an empty cell in which a suicidal inmate was later houaed. The inmate tq)OIIedly swallowed the chemicals. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process becauae the Office ofI nternal AflitiiS initi81Iy authorized the hiring authority to take disciplinary action without an investigation and then:after, upon receipt oft he hiring authority's request fur investigation, improperly rejected the case. The Office ofI nternal AflitiiS' decision to reject the case and fitilure to conduct an investigation inter&red with the hiring authority's ability to make appropriate findings, thwarted discovery ofp otentially exculpaloly e\'idence, and stripped the employee relations officer of the ability to complete appropriate documentation. The Office of Internal Aflililll alao delayed deciding the hiring authority's ~equest for an investigation. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflicient InJuffic:icnt Anessment Questions • Did the Ofllee of In•m at Atrain make an appropriate inltW determination regarding the eue? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs lY{used to open an administrative invt!3tigrltion and add di3hont!3ty allegrltions evm though the officers claimed to have 1QIOVed chemicals from a ceU when they had not dotJe so. Th4 Office oflnttJmal Affairs also lY{used to add allegr~tions agrltmt the offJcersf or improperly collabora#tJg on their rep011s evm though the reports COtJtaitled identical language. • H the hiring uthorlty 111.bmitted a req11at for reeonlldentlon, did the Oftlee of In~ Affaln make an approprla• decblon regarding the reqliCIIt? Th4 Of!ic4 oflntemal Affairs did notmeatlillgfolly comider new illforma#on and the hirillg authority's rt~~questfor iiiVt!3tigation. The Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs rqected the entire case thereby USUtpillg the hirillg authority's ability to make appropriatefmdillgs. • H the hiring uthorlty detumlned that any of the allegatlo11.1 eollld not be 1111hined or that an aa:11111• finding eollld not be made regarding any allegation, wu that detumlnatlon the re~~~.lt of an inlatllcleDt or nntlmely investigation? Th4 OfJic4 ofI nternal Affairs lY{used to open an administrative invt!3tigrltion that may have rev«ll«J exculpafQTy evidence resultillg ill a morefavorablefrndit~gfor the o.tfic.ers. • Wu the CDCR Form 481 docnmentlng the tlndinp properly completed? Although the hirillg authorityf ound tnsujJidetlt evidence to sustaill the allegrltions, the employee relations officer was unable to complete the appropriate form docu1MIItillg the hirillg authority's jindillgs because the Office ofh lternal Affairs rejected the case ajUr the ojJiars had bem tla711ed as subjects. • Did the deparn.nt eond11ct the pre-dllclpllnary/lnvelligatlve phue with dliC diligence? Th4hirillg authority sub11Wt«< atJ appeal to the Of!ic4 ofl ntemal Affairs otJ October 5, 201 6, but the Office ofh lternal Affain did tJot make a det6mina#on until February 8, 201 7, more than four motlths later. Case Disposition The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 99 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-m 17-0021917-IR L Disbonesty L Sustained Diami!aal Diami!aal 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained 3. Contraband 3. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On June 7, 2016, an officer wu allesedly overly filmiliar with an inmate, introcb:ed a systems infonnstion memOI)' card into the institution, and wu disbonest to a SC'ieant "'gulling the memOI)' can!. On January 13, 2017, the officer allegedly entered the institution with a mobile phone hidden in his protective vest. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdures governing the pre-disciplinaly process becauae the department attorney did not properly assess the deadline to take disciplinary action or &dequalely coopemte with the special agent, hiring authority, and the OIG. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inaufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Wltldn 11 ealcDdar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer correctly a~ea die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry inlo die cue management ~Y~tem confirmiDg die date of die reported IDcldent,dle date of dbeovery, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any eueptlon1lo die deadlllle knOWD at die time? Tlr4 departmellt attorney initially illc,.-,ctly assessed an «XCeptiOII to the tkadJjtJefor talrillg disciplinary action. o No later dian 11 calelldar day1 following Ullgmnentofdle cue, did die department atlorney contact die Ullgned I(ICdalageut and die monbarlo diiCIQIIdle elementl of a dloro11gh lnveltlgatlou of die alleged mbcond11ct? Tlr4 departmellt attorney was assigned 011 March 3, 2017, but did not consult with the special agent or the OIG unlil April 7, 2017, more than oM m011th later. o Did die I(ICdal ageot and departmeut attorney cooperate and provide reu-tlme conlllltatlou wldl each other throughout die pre-illsclpiiDary phue? Tlr4 departmellt attorney did not timely rt!3p011d to the special agent's rtKJUt!3ts to schedule the initial CliSe CQflference and was late for the o.tfiur's inwviel!t o Did die departmeut attorney cooperate with and provide contllluu real-time CODIDitltloD with die OIG thro11gh011t die pre-illsclpiiDary phue? Tlr4 departmellt attorney did not timely rt!3p011d to the OIG's recommmdatiotJ to scheduk the invt!3tigtllivefindinfP co'!{eret~ce and the employee relatiOIIS officer's multiple rtKJUt!3ts to scheduk the co'!{erence. The department attorney also failed to provide her writtetJ recommet~datiOIIs regarding thefitlditJfP to the OIG and the hiring authority utltil the day oft he co'!feretJctJ. Case Dlsp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and detennined diami!aal was the appropriate pellaity. Tbe OIG concurred. However, the officer "'signed befo"' disciplinary action could be imposed The hiring authority placed a letter in the officel's official penollai file indicating he ""igned pending disciplinary action. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and proced=s governing the disciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 100 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016~11 16-0001847-IR 1. Misuse ofA uthority 1. Sustained Suapcnaion Salary Reduction 2. Dilloourteous Treatment 2. Sustained 3. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 3. Sustained 4. Dillhonesty 4. Not Sustailled Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sullllllary On June 11, 2016, an officer wu allegedly diahonest and uncooperative with outaidc law enfurcementinvestigating an accident scene, delayed and obstructed the law enfmcement agency, and repeatedly refcrenoed his own ststus as a peace officer during the accident investigation. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplin81y process because the Office ofintemal A1fain did not initially add an allegation or open a full investigation. The specW agent included indevant evidence in the draft investigative report. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Insufticient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Did the Ofllee of lutem al Afraln DUke m appropriate illilial determillatiou regudillg the cue? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs decid«< not to add an alkgatWnfor driving Ulldu the i1ljlue1lc4 or open an i1IW!3tigatio11 when the offiar admitt«< he had been drillki1lg and th-w-other peraom mvolv«< that tuJetkd to be interview«/ to clarifY i1IC011Sistenci43 reganlmg thef acts. o Wu the illvatlgative dnft report provided to the OIG for re\'lew thorough md -tJpnprlately drafted? Th4 i1lvt!3tigative draft repOTt contoined a criminal hisfo'J' ofa dilferent person that had the same name as the ojficu. Case Dbposition The hiring authority sustained the allegations, except fur diahonesly, and imposed a 26-worlring-dly suspension. The OIG ooiiC\Lmld with the hiring authority's detemli.nations. After the Skelly hearing, the hiring authority entered into a settlement apement with the officer converting the suspension into aS percent salaty !eduction for 26 months. The OIG concurted because the modified penally was financWiy equivalent to the original suspension. Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Suffic:icnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 101 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-12 16-0002146-IR L Use ofForce L Unfu\lllded No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Unfu\lllded Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuDUDary On June 12, 2016, two officen and a youth counselor allegedly used llllnlUOILable force on a wan!, ruled to report their use offurce, and lililed to have the ward medically evaluated. A aeiJCU!l and two other youth oounaeiOill allegedly witnessed the use offurce and lililed to report it, and the Be~~Canl abo allegedly lililed to have the ward medically evaluated Pre-disciplinary Attemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKledures governing the pre-disciplinaly proce&S becaw~e the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to tbe Office of Internal Aflilirs or timely conault with tbe department attorney and tbe OIG, and tbe department attorney did not timely contact tbe special agent or timely uae&S the deadline for talring disciplinuy action. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDaufficient Sufficient Attettment Questions o Wu die matter ~ferred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~ wlthiD 45 calendar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on June 13, 201 6, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until Sqtember U, 2016, 93 days after the date of discovery. o WttldD 11 caleDdar day1, did die departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offleer cornctly Ulaldle deadline for taklllg dbclpliDary actloD and make Ul entry Into die cue management IIYitem confirming the dm of the reported Incident, die dm of dbcovery, die deadline for taklllg dbclpliDary actloll, ud uy esceptloD• to the deadline lmOWD at die time? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney was assigned October 19, 2016, but did not maloe an e11t1y into the CliSe management system 1flgarr/illg the deadlinef or tokillg disciplinary action until November 10, 2016, 22 days after assignment. o No later diUlll calendar day1 following Ullgmnentofthe cue, did the department attorney contact the Ullgned I(ICdalagent ud the monitor to dtiCIUII the elementl of a dlorongh lnvelltlgatlon of die alleged mllcondnct? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney was assigned October 19, 2016, but did not 0011tact the assigned sp«.ial agent until November 10, 2016, 22 daJ13 after assignment. o Did die HA timely connlt wldl die OIG and departmnt attorney (If applieable), regarding the nfficleney of the lnve~tigatlon and the lnve~tlgalive flndlnp? Th4 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complet4d its investigation ond rqerred the matter to the hiring authority on March 22, 2017. However; the hiring authority did not cONJult with the OIG ond the tkpartmellt attomey 1flgarr/illg the sufficiellcy oft he investigation and the investigativef indings until May 19, 2017, almost two months thtJ1flajtet: o Did die department condnct die pn-dtlclpiiDary/lnvelltlgalive phue wl1h dne diligence? Th4 tklays a1fl addressed ill p..Wr questioiiS. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority determined that the investigation conclusively proved tbe miBconduct did not occur. Tbe OIG coiiCUI!ed with tbe hiring authority's determination. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 102 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-06-18 16-0001895-IR L Over-Familiarity 1. Suatained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Imsubotdination 2. Suatained 3. Neglect ofD uty 3. Suatained 4. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 4. Suatained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On June 18, 2016, an officer allescdly offi:md to sell a mobile phone to an inmate. On July 4, 2016, the officer allegecD.y &iled to properly process a llldio confiscated during a cell search. On July 17, 2016, the officer allegecD.y improperly authorized an electronic device to be enpaved, iaaued the device to an inmate, and &iled to ens= the inmate's property canlliated the device. On February 17, 20 17, the officer allegecD.y refuaed to participate in an interview with the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Tile department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinuy proceas bccauae the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Insufficient Sufficient I Auessment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affa1n wlthlll 45 caleDdar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on June 18, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until August 12, 2016, 55 days after the dat8 of discovery. • Did the department eondnct the pre-dbclpllnuyllnveltlgative phue with dne dntgence? Th4 tklay is addre3a«< in a p..Wr quution. Case Dbposldon Tile hiring authority suatained the allegations, combined this case with another case, and served the officer with a notice ofd iamiaaal. Tile OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. However, the officer resigned befu"' the diBciplinary action took effect. The hiring authorityp'-'ed a letter in the officel's official personnel file indicating sbe "'signed pending diBciplinuy action. Disciplinary Anessment Tile department sufficiently complied with policies and proced=s governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 103 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-18 16-000 1941-IR 1. Dillboneaty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Unreuonable Use ofForoe 2. Not Sustained 3. NeglectofDuty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sununary On June 18, 2016, a SCIJeant allegedly fililed to activate an alann wben an inmate became disruptive, glllbbed the back of the inmate's shirt, used her body weight to hold the inmate against the wall, used her root to slide the inmate's root, and was diaboneat in her report about the incident. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilira. The department attorney did not oorrectly assess the de&dline to take disciplinaly action, consult with the special agent in a timely manner, or attend the sCIJCanl's interview. Subltantive Radn1 Sufticient At~estment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthiD 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alkg«J mi3conducl 011 June 18, 2016, but the hiring authority did not 1fl/er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until August 31, 2016, 74 days after the dat4 ofd i3covery. o WlthiD 11 calelldar day1, did tile departmot attorney or employee relatlou offleer correctly Ulal tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioo and make Ul entry illto tile cue management l)'lltem confinniDg the date of the repor1ed IDcldent, tile date of d!K:overy, tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioo, ud uy eueption1 to the deadlllle knOWD at tile time? 1114 tkpartment attorney Wll3 assigned on October 5, 2016, ond 011 October 6, 2016, entered incomJCt dates from another case. On November 16, 2016, the department attorney eventually entered the comtct illf01111ation, 42 daJ13 ofter being assigned. o No later tiiUlll calendar day1 following Ullgnmentofthe cue, did the department attorney contact the Uligned special agent ud the IIIOllltorto dilcu1 the elementl of a tllorough illve.tlgatllln of tile alleged milcondnct? 1114 tkpartment attorney Wll3 assigned October 5, 2016, but did not contact the assigned speciol agent until November 1, 2016, 27 days thereafter. o Did tile department attorney attend IDvatigative IDtervleM for key wltna~a to aaea wltna1 demeuor and credibility? 1114 tkpartment attorney did not att4nd the sergeant's interview. o Did tile department conduct tile pre-dixlpliDary/lnveltlgative phue witll due diligence? 1114 tklays a1ft addressed in prior questioNJ. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 104 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-06-20 16-0001929-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismiasal Dismiasal 2. Intoxication 2. Sustained 3. Driving Under the Inftuence 3. Sustained 4. Dishonesty 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On June 20, 2016, an officer allesedly drove under the influence ofa lcobol, collided with a cwb, and wu dishoneat to outside law enfuroement wllen he denied drinking. On June 22, 2016, the officer wu allesedly diBbonest in a memorandum to the hiring aulhority "'ganling his blood alcobollevel. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office oflnlemal Aflilirs. The department attorney did not correctly assess the date ofd iscovery and deadline for taking diaciplinaly action, nor did she note that the deadline for taking diBciplinary action should be modified and consult the OIG. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient A11es1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred tu the Offlee of IDtemal AffUn wlthiD 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d of the alleged misconduct on June 11, 101 6, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the O.ffic4 ofI nternal Affairs until August 11, 1016, 61 days ajW the date of discovery. o WlthiD 11 calendar day1, did the dep~t attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer correctly a~ea the deadline for taldDg dbclpllnary actloD and make lUI entry lntu the cue IDU~agement l)'lltem confirmiDg the date of the reported IDcldent, the date of d!K:overy, the deadline for taldDg dbclpllnary actloD, Uld lUI)' eueption1 tu the dead!IDe knOWD at the time? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney incOTTt!Ctly assas«< the date of discovery as June 10, 1016, when the date ofd iscovery was actually June 11, 1016, andfaikd to note an obvious auption to the lkadlille. o Did the department attorney appropriately determine that the deadline for taking dbclpllnary action u orfclnally calcnlated 1ho11id be modified Uld conllllt with the OIG and 1pecW agent? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney did not note ill the case management system that the lkadlillefor taking disciplillaty action as originally calculated should be modifi«< and consult with the OIG. o Did the department cond11ct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dDe diligence? Tlr4 lklay is addre3s«< ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring aulhority sustained all allegations except that the officer wu dishonest in a memorandum to the hiring authority. The hiring autbority combined this case with another case and served the officer with a notice of dilmisaal. The OIG concurred with the hiring aulhority'a detenninations. However, the oflioer "'signed bc:!b"' the diaciplinaly action took effect. The hiring aulhority placed a letter in the officet's official personnel file indicating he ~igned pending diBciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and proced~a governing the diBciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 105 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-29 16-0001927-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Suslained Letter ofR eprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained 3. Diahoncsty 3. Not Sustained 4. Use ofForce 4. Not Sustained S. Medical-Denied Care S. Not Sustained 6. Failure to Report Use ofForoe 6. Not Sustained 7. Nepect ofD uty 7. Not Sustained 8. Diahoncsty 8. Unfounded 9. Failure to Report Use ofForoe 9. Unfounded Case Type: Adminiatnltive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On June 29, 2016, an offioer allesedJy fililed to activate an alarm when an inmate attempted to pb him, failed to document the il!(:ident or report it to biB supervisor, closed a fuod port on the inmate's hand causing injwy and failed to report it, denied the inmate medical treatment for his injwy, uttered an elqlletive at the inmate, and failed to sip biB post orden. Two psychiatric technicians allegedly observed the offioer's use offoroe but failed to reportil On August 3, 2016, the officer and one oft he psychiatric technicians MOre allegedly diahonest during an inmate complaint inquiey. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with prooedurea soverning the pre-disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Offioe of Internal Affilirs. Pnleeduni Rating Subltantive Rating IDallfficient Sufficient Auessment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of IDternal Affidrl wldlln 45 caleodar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartment karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on July 5, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Office of Internal AffaiT3 until Aug113t 26, 2016, 52 days after the dat8 of discovery. • Did die department condnct die pre-dbclpllnuyllnveltlgative phue wl1h dne dDigenee? Th4 tklay is addresa«< in a p..Wr quution. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained allegations that the offioer uttered an expletive, failed to activate his alarm, and sign hill post orders, but not the remaining allegations against him, and issued a letter of reprimand. For the psychiatric technician who was allegedly diBhoncst, the hiring aulhority determined the investigation conclusively proved the misconduct may bave oocurred, but the psychiatric technician was not involved The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the other psychiatric technician. Tbe OIG concurred with the hiring aulhority's detenninations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Penonnel Boanl. Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedurea sovemins the disciplinaty prooess. Pnleeduni Rating Subttantive Rating Su.fficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 106 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegatlont Findingt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-07~ 16-0001876-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Suatained Letter of Instruction Letter oflnatruction 2. Controlled Substances 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary Between July 5, 2016, and July 6, 2016, an officer allegedly learned he inpted a "'latiw's prescription pain medication and failed to report it to the hiring authority. On July 8, 2016, the officer allegedly tested poaitiw for barbiturates. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary process becauae the Office oflntemal Aflilinl improperly ld'uaed to authorize an interview of the officer and granted the hiring authority's ~equest for an interview only after the issue was raised to a higher lew! of review. This caused significant delay in obtaining mitigating evidence that supported a penalty other than dismissal. Procedural Rating Subatantlw Rating Inaufficient lnallfficicnt I Anestment Questions • H the hlriDg uthorlty 111bmitted a req11at for reeonlldentlon, did die Ofllee of Internal Afl"aln make .., ~propria• dedllon regarding die reqliCIIt? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs initially deni4d the hiring authority's appeal requesting an intoview of the officer. The hiring authority and department attorney elewzted the matto, folfqwing whidl the Office ofJ nttJm(Jl Affairs agreed to cot~ duct the interview. o Did the departmeut coDduct the pre-dbclpltDary/IDvertlgative phue with dliC dlllgCDCe? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs Tt!Ceived the hiring authority's appeal on September 30, 2016, but did not take action until March 29, 2017, six months filter. Case Dispotitlon The hiring authority suataincd the allegations and issued a letter ofi nstruction. Baaed the officel's credible explanation and a medical "'view oft he drug ~ults, the OIG concurred with the hiring authority's decision. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subatantlw Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 107 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-ffl-13 16-0001987-IR LUaeofFmce L Sustained Letter ofI nstruction Letter of Instruction 2. DW.Onesty 2. Not Sualained 3. Uae ofFmce 3. Not Sualained Case Type: Adminislnltive Inveatigation Incident SullliUry On July 13, 2016, an offioer allegedly pushed an inmate in the cbeat and was diBboneat in his report reguding the illcident. A laundry supervisor allegedly fitiled to tq~orl witneBBing the oflicet's uae offurce. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinuy proceas because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of InlenW Aflilirs or timely conduct the investigative findinp conference, the department attorney did not document important dates replding the deadline to take diBcipl.inuy action, document review oft he investigative report, or provide a written SU11111181Y regarding the report to the OIG, and the special agent asked improper queations and submitted an insufficient draft tq~orl. Subttantive Ratin1 Suflieient Assessment Questions o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 ealendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on July 26, 2016, but the hiring authority did not n(er the matter to the Office ofI nwrnal Affairs until September 28, 2016, M days after the date of discovery. o Wltllln 11 ealendar day1, did tile departmot attorney or employee relatlou offleer eorreetly Ulal tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary adioo and make an entry illto tile cue manage_..t ll)'lltem conflnniDg the date of the reporiM lneldent, tile date of dlxovery, tile deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary adioo, and any esceptlon1 to the deadline lmOWD at tile time? 1114 tkpartment attorney matk an tJIItly regardillg the dtJOdlillefor taking disciplillary action but the tllltrydid not a3Sess the date of the rep011ed incidtlnl, date of discovery, or any aceptiolls to the deadline. o Were all of the iDtemeWII thorough and appropriately eonducted? 1114 special agentfrequtllltly suggested answers to witnesses aJid allOWffd the officer to read his report aloud rather thaJI give an illdependent recolkctioll ofe vents. o Wltllln 11 ealendar day• following reedptof the IDveltlcatlve report, did the department attorney review tile report and provide appropriate nbltantive feedbael< addrelllng tile tlloroughna1 and clarity oft he report? 1114 Office ofI nternal Affairs provided the draft rep011 to the tkpartment attorney 011 December 28, 2016. Howe-, the departmtlllt attorney did not providef eedback regarding the repart • Did tile departJ.nt attorney provide written conflrmatlna 1ammarlzlng all critical dbcaalnn1 about tile Invatigative report to the 1pec:W agent witll a eopy to tile OIG? 1114 tkpartment attorney did nat provide writtm colljirmatioll summarizillg all critical discussioiiS about the investigative report to the OIG. o Wu tile lnveltlcative draft report provided to tile OIG for nvlew tllorough and appropriately drafted? 1114 draft inV«Stigative rep011 omitted relevant information and inaccurately stated other information. o Did tile HA tm.ly eoanlt wltll tile OIG and departmot attorney (If applleable), regarding the nfficlency of the lnvatigatlon and the lnvatlgatlve ftadlnp? 1114 Office ofI nternal Affairs retu1114d the case to the hiring authority 011 January 27, 2017. Howe-, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG ond the tkpartment attorney regarding the sufficiency of the investigation ond the inV«Stigative fmdings until February 22, 2017, 26 days thereafter. o Did tile departJ.ut eondud tile pre-dixlpliDaryllaveltlcatlve phue witll due diligence? 1114 tklays are addressed ill prior questioNI. Case Dbpoaldon Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation against the laundry supervisor and issued a letter of instruction. Tbe hiring authority fuund the officer used furce but it wu reasonable. Therefore, the hiring authority did not sualain the allegations against the officer. Tbe OIG ooncurred with tbe hiring authority's detenninltions. DlscipUnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the discipl.inuy proceBB because the hiring authority delayed oonducting the diliciplinary findinp conference, and the department attorney did not to provide written oonfumation ofp enalty diBCW~sions. Pnlcedural Ratin1 Subttantive Ratin1 Insuflic:ient Suflieient Assessment Questions I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 108 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA • Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHeablc) regardiDg dbelpllnary detennlllatloDI prior to malrlDg a filial deeblOD? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority 011 January 27, 2017. HowevP, tlr4 hiring authority did 110t consult with tlr4 OIG and the deptl1t1Mnt attorney reganlillg the disciplinary determinations Ulltil February 22, 201 7, 26 days thereafter. a Did the dep.n-nt attorney provide to the HA and OIG ....-ltteD cODflrmatlOD of penalty dbeiiSIIDDI? Th4 department attorney did 110t provide written colljirmatkm ofp tJtJalty discussimrs to tlr4 hiring authority or the OIG. a Wu the dlsdpliDary phue CODdDCied with dae diligence by the depan-nt? Th4 delay is address«/ ill a p..Wr question. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Inidal Penalty FlnalPenaJty 2016-07-15 16-000 1915-IR 1. Unreasonable Use ofFon:e 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty lmpo8ed Case Type: AdminiBU8tive IDveatigation Incident Suaunary On July 15, 2016, an officer allegedly struck an inmate in the lilce when the inmate posed no imminent th=L Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings conference. Procedural Rating Subltandve Rating IDallffic:ient Sufficiellt Anes1ment Questions a Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG and depan-nt attorney {If applleablc), regardiDg the olllclcncy of the IDvatlgatlon and the IDvatlgatlve fiDdiDp? Th4 Offic4 ofI nwrnal Affairs compklt4d its investigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority 011 December 13, 2016. Howevu, the hiring authority did not consult with tlr4 OIG at1d tlr4 departmmtatto1714)1 regarding tlr4 sujJkiellcy of the illvtJ.ftigatkm at1d tlr4 itwtJStigativejilldillgs Ulltil February 17, 2017, 66 days thereafter. a Did the dep.n-nt cond11ct the pre-dbelpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dae diligence? Th4 delay was addressed ill a prior qU&1tkm. Case Dlapolidon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegation. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 109 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-07-20 16-000193(}-IR 1. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Neslect ofD uty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On July 20, 2016, outaide law enfuroement am:sted an officer for allesedlybiting and hitting ber lwaband and accelerating a vehicle in his direction while her 21-month-old child was in the car. The officer also allesedly fililed to report ber arrest to the hiring authority. On January S, 2017, the officer suffered a miJdemeanor conviction for ehild endangermenl Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department's bandling of the }m'-d.sciplinuy process was substantively insufficient because the Office ofI nternal Affitits did not interview the officer, causing the hiring authority to make a detennination without the benefit of the officer's statemenl Procedural Rating Subltantiw Rating &lffic:icnt lnallfficicnt I Assessment Questions • Did the Olllee of In•m al Atrain make an appropriate lnltW determination regarding the cue? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs rqused to interview th4 officer even though both th4 offiar and her husband hadp hJ13ical injuriD and th4 officer matk no substantive statements w outsi lk law enforcement and, therqDre. th4 officer~ vera tan ofe velll3 was unbloWII. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegations, except thst the officer failed to "'Port her arrest, and served a 10 pen:ent salary !eduction for 18 months. The OIG OOII(lllm:d However, the officer resigned before the disciplinary action took cffecl The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer'a official pemonnel file indicating she resigned pending diaciplinuy action. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantiw Rating &lffic:icnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 110 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-ffl-31 16-00019~IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Adminislnltive Inveatigation Incident Summary On July 31, 2016, an offiQCI" allegedly ~w outgoing inmate mail in the truh 18ther than enBUring it wu prooel!aed fur delivety. On Augual 1, 2016, ~e other officen~ allegedly t~w olltfoing inmate mail in the truh mther than ensuring it wu proceaaed fur delivety. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaty proceaa bCC8llaC the department attorney did not make a timely entry into the cue management system and incomctly identified a critical date, and the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings ~nee. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Iaauflicient Sufticient Assessment Questions o Within 11 ealeDdar day1, did tile departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offleer cornctly Ulal tile deadline for tak!Dg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry !DID tile cue management IIYitem conflnniDg tile date of tile reported IDddent, tile date of diKovery, tile deadline for tak!Dg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any esceptlon11D tile dead!IDe imOWD at tile time? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney Wll3 assigned October 13, 201 6; but did 110t mal!ltr an entry into the case maMgemem system regordillg the deodlillef or taking discipUMI'JI action ulllil Fe bnJary 3, 2017, 113 days afterassigrrmfllll. ThedepartmDJtattomeyal.so incOITeCllyassessedthe incidentdal4as August 1, 2016, whm thecorrectdalewt13July 31, 2016. o Did tile HA timely COIUIIllt wltll tile OIG and departmnt attorney {If applleablc), regardiDg tile RJIIldeney of the IDvatlgatlon and tile IDvatlgatlve flndiDp? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs complet4d its illwstigation and "'!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authority on April 12, 2017. However, the hiring authority did 110t consull with the OIG and the lkpaTtmenl attorney reganlillg the sufficiency of the investigation and the illwstigativefmdillga until May 5, 2017, 23 days thereafter; o Did tile dep.n-nt condllct tile pre-dlxlpliDary/lnveltlgative phue wltll d..e dlllcence? Tlr4 lklays are addressed ill prior questioNJ. Case Disposition The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidenoe to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 111 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-08-m 16-0001865-IR 1. Tlm:ai/Intimidation l.NotSuslained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Battery 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On AIIIWit 3, 2016, a superviliing senior programmer analyst allegedly vetbally threatened a senior programmer analyst, pushed down on his sboulders, and restricted his movement. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKledures soveming the pre-disciplinaly proceas because the hiring authority did not timely consult with the OIG and the department attorney. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Inauflicient Sut'licient I Assessment Questions o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG uut departmnt attomey (If applieable), regarding the nfficleDey of the lnvatigatlon uut the lnvatlgall.ve flndlnp? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complel4d its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority on October 25, 2016. However; the hiring authority did notcONJult with the OIG and the department attomey regarding the sufficietlcy oft he inW!3tigatio11 ulllil March 28, 2017,five months later. o Did the departmeut coDduet the pn-dbclpllnary/IDvertlgall.ve phue with du d111geuee? 1114 delay is addressed in a p..Wr question. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~8~8 16-0001973-IR 1. Use ofForoe 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On AIIIWit 8, 2016, five officers allegedly threw a handcuffi:d inmate to the ground and attacked the inmate, ~a~ulting in injuries to the inmate, and fililed to report the use offoltle. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dsciplinary prooess. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating &Lfficicnt Sut'licient I Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determination. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 112 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-{18-12 16-{1001944-IR l. Dillboneaty l. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Unreuonable Use ofForoe 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Investigation Incident SullliUry On August 12, 2016, two oflioel'll allegedly threw an inmate into a cell, causing injuries to the inmate. The two ofliOCI'II UJd a third oflioer were allegedly dishonest in their tq~orfs regarding the incident Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies UJd procedures governing the pre-disciplinary prooess. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to sustain the allegations. The OIG ooncurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 113 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-09-14 16-0002011-IR L Dishonesty 1. Suatained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Failure to Report 2. Suatained 3. Intoxication 3. Suatained 4. Neglect ofD uty 4. Suatained 5. Other Failure ofG ood Bebavior 5. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On September 14, 2016, a SCII!eant allegedly drove under the influence ofa lcohol, struck a puked trailer, left the scene, and drove to a parking lot whenl he struck another vehicle. The aeiJCU!l was also allegedly dishonest to outside law enfon:ement and fililed to report his am:al On January 12, 2017, the SC~JC&nt suffered a miademeanor conviction fur driving under the influence of alcohol and allegecDy fililed to report the conviction to the hiring authority. Pre-dlsdpllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplinaly process becauae the Office ofintemal Affilin did not add a dishonesty allegation the evidence supported and the department attorney did not adequately assess the deadline to take disciplinary action. Procedural Rating Subltandve Rating Inauflicient Sufticient I A1ses1ment Questions o Did the Oflke of luternal Afl"aln DUke m appropriate illilial. detemrlDatioD regudillg the cue? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs did 110t illdude a disho1141ty allegation baud 011 the sergeant's claim he did 110t blow he hit a parb!d trailer. o WltldD 11 caleDdar day1, did the departmut attorney or employee rel.atloiQI oflleer correctly a~ea the deadliDe for taldug dbelpliDary actloD and DUke m entry iDlo the cue llllUlagement ~Y~tem conflrmiDg the date of the reported illcldent, the date of dbeovery, the deadliDe for taldug dbelpliDary actloD, md my esceptloullo the deadliDe lmcnm at the time? Th4 department attorney did not conji1711 ill the case management system the blown e:xception to the deadline to t• disciplillaty action. o Did the departmeut attorney -tJpropriately detenDiDe that the deadliDe for taldDg .U.clpllury actloo u orfgiDally uleDlated lhoDid be modified md CODIDlt with the OIG and apecW agent? There was a blown exception to the deadline to taU disciplinary action but the department attorney did 110t update the deadlinef or talring disciplinary action baud 011 this exuption. Case Dltpoaldon The hiring authority suatained the allegations and detennined diami!aal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. However, the aetgeant !Qigned before diBciplinaly action could be imposed. The hiring authority placed a letter in the setgeant's official personnel file indicating he resigned pending dilciplinaly action. Dbdpllnary Anessment The department sufficiently eomplied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinsry process. Procedural Rating Subltandve Rating Sufficient Sufticient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 114 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-00-16 17-0000125-IR L Disbonesty L Sustained Diami!aal Diami!aal 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SuDUDary Between September 16,2016, and November 16, 2016, an officer a!Iesedly communicated with an inmate approximately 585 times and twice with the inmate's fiunily. On October 18, 2016, the officer was allesedly diBbonest in a memorandum in which she denied the oommunications. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures sovemins the pre-disciplinuy process becauae the hirins authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. The empl~e relations officer did not confinn "'levant dates. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflicient Sllflicicnt Auessment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~ wlthiD 45 ealcndar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd oft he alleg«J misconduct on November 17, 2016, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Offsce ofl1llerllal Affairs 1111til January 3, 2017, 47 days after the dau ofd iscovery. a WithiD 11 caleDdar day1, did die departmnt attorney or employee relatlou offleer correctly Ulaldle deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDto die cue management 11)'111em conflnniDg the dm of the reported IDddent,dle dm of diKovery, die deadline for taklllg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any esceptlon1 to the deadliDe lmOWD at die time? Th4 empwyee relations offscer did not malr4 any entry into the case management sysum colljirmillg relevant dates. • Did die dep.n-nt eondllct die pre-dbclpliDary/lnvelltlgative phue wi1h dDe dlllcence? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hirins authority sustained the alleptions and detennined dismissal was the appropriate penalty. The OIG concurred. Howewr, the officer "'sisnOO prior to completion of the inwsti¢on and bcfo"' diBciplinary action could be imposed. The hirins authority placed a letter in the officer's official personnel file indicatins she ~isned pendins disciplinary action. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedun:s sovemins the diBciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sllflicicnt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 115 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-09-27 16-0002033-IR L Dishonesty L Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Insubordination/Willful Disobedience 2. Not Sustained 3. DiBcourteoua Treatment 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sununary On September 27, 2016, a serJeant allegecD.y ldUaed to provide an office tecbnician and group lilcilitaton with institution keys as authorized in a warden's memorandum, crumpled and diiiCUded the memCllalldum, and diamiaaed the warden's authority to issue the keys. On September 28, 2016, the serJeant allegecD.y lied to an associate warden reprding the incident. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures soveming the pre-disciplinaly process because the department attorney did not timely enter relevant dates intc the case management system or contact the special agent and did not provide written ft:edback regatding the inwstigative report. The hiring authority delayed ccnducting the inwstigatiw findings ccnft:rence. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Insufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions • Within 11 ealcndar day1, did the dep.n-nt attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~ea the de.clline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetlon and make lUI entry Into the cue manage_..t ~Y~tem eonflrmiDg the dm of the reporiM IDeldent, the dm of dbeovery, the de.clline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetlon, Uld lUI)' esceptlon• to the deadliDe lmcnm at the time? 1114 tkpartment attorney 'IIW assign«/ Nowmber 21, 2016, but did not make an mtry illto ,_case ma~~agemmt SJ13telll regeurlillg the tkadlillefor taking disciplinary action until December 16, 2016, 25 days after assignmmt. • No later thUill calendar day1 following Ullgmnentofthe eue, did the department attorney contact the aligned spedalageut Uld the moobarto dtiCIQII the elementl of a thoro11gh lnveltlgatlou of the alleged mbeood11et? 1114 tkpartment attorney 'IIW assign«/ Nowmber 21, 2016, but did not cOIItoct the special a gmt until December 13, 2016, 22 days after assignmmt • Did the departmeut attorney pm\'lde wrltteu eooflrmatlon 11UD111Uiz1Dg all erltkal dbe1111loo1 abo11t the IDvatlgattve report to the 1peeW qent with a eopy to the OIG? 1114 tkpartment attorney did not provide writtm co'!firmatioll sUIIImarizing all critical discussioiiS about the invt!3tigative report to the speciol agent with a copy to the OIG. • Did the HA tm.ly eoDIDlt with the OIG and dep.n-nt attorney (If applteable), regardiDg the nffieleDey of the IDve~tigatlou and the IDve~tlgative fiDdiDp? 1114 Office oflllternal Affairs compklted its illvestigation alld rqerred the matter to the hirillg authority 011 March 29, 2017. However, ,_hiring authority did not cOIISult with the OIG alld the departmmt attorney 1flgarding ,_ sufficimcy oft he illvestigatioll and the invt!3tigativejindillgs tmtil May 5, 2017, 37 days the1flajtu. • Did the departmeut eoDd11et the pre-dtlelpllnary/lnveltlgative phue with d11e diligence? 1114 tklays a1fl address«/ ill prior questioiiS. Case Dbp01ldon Tbe hiriDg lulhority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG eoncuned with the hiring authority's determinations. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 116 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10-m 16-0002169-IR L Over-Familiarity L Sustained Diami!aal Diami!aal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry Between October 2, 2016, and Deoember 7, 2016, an oflioer allesedJy oommunicated with an inmate via telephone calls and text mCI!aages. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with prooedures soveming the pre-disciplinuy procC1!8 because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Offioe of Internal Aflilirs, and the department attorney did not accwately assess the deadline to take disciplinary action. Pnleedunl Rating Subltantive Rating Inallflicient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of IDtemal Affidrl wlthiD 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d of the alleged misconduct on September 22, 2016, but the hiring autlwrily did not rqer the matter to the Offsce ofI nternal Affairs UlltU December 12, 2016, 81 days after the date of discovery. a WlthiD 11 calendar day1, did die dep~t attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly Ulea die de.clline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make lUI entry Into die cue IDU~agement 1)'11tem confinniDg the dm of the reported IDcldent,dle dm of d!K:overy, die de.clline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, Uld lUI)' eueptlon1 to the deadline knOWD at die time? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney incOTTt!Ctly assas«< the deadlinef or taking disciplinary action as Deumber 7, 2017, when the deadline was actually September 22, 2017. o Did die department condnct die pre-dbclpllnary/lnveltlgative phue wl1h dne dDigenee? Tlr4 lklay is address«/ in a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the alleptions and detennined diami!aal was the approprilte penalty. Tbe OIG ooncum:d However, the officer resigned before diaciplinary action could be imposed Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the oflioer's official pC!liOnnel file indicating abe resigned under unfilvmable ciroumstanoes. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinary prooess. Pnleedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 117 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlngt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-10-07 16-0002168-IR L NeglectofDuty L Sustained Leiter ofReprimand Leiter ofI nstruction 2. Misuse of Authority 2. Not Sustained 3. NeglectofDuty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On October 7, 2016, an officer allegedly misused hia authority when he cut a bead from an inmate's hair with the tool used for cutting nooses. Two other officCD allegedly failed to atop the fint officer. Pre-dlscipllnary Anemnent The department did not comply with policies and procedures gcveming the pre-disciplinary process because the Office ofI nternal Aflitits did not mal<e a timely or appropriate determination and the hiring authority did not request additional investigation. The failure to conduct an investigation resulted in an inappropriate initial finding. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Insllflicient Insllfficicnt I Atsea1ment Questions • Did the Olllee ofla•mal Atrain make a determination regardtng the eue withtn 30 calendar da11? 1114 OfJic4 ofI nternal Affairs Tt!C4ived the requt!3tfor investigation on November 23, 2016, but did not k1k4 action until Deamber 28, 2016, 35 days after the receipt of the ~Ut!3t • Did the Olllee of Ia•mal Atrain make an appropriate tnilial. determination regudtng the eue? 1114 Of!ic4 oflntemal Affairs refused the OIG's recommendation to open an invt!3tigation to interview the olficus and other possible wiillesst!3 to clarifY thef acts. The failure to iiiVt!3tigate resulted ill the hiring authority serving disciplinary action against the officer, which the department revoked upon learning information thot would have been discovered during the coune ofa thorough iiiVt!3tigation. • H the HA determined additional tnvatigatlon wu nece....-y, wu additional lnvatf&ation req11e1ted? 1114 hiring authority did not request additional investigation because he believed the Of!ic4 ofl ntemal Affairs would deny the ~Ut!3t • Did the department conduct the pn-dbclpllnuy/lavellf&ative phue with dae dntgeace? 1114 delay is addre3sed ill a p..Wr question. Case Dbpoaltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the fintofficer misused the tool, but not that he misused hia authority, and issued a leiter of reprimand. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the other officetS but provided training. The fint officer filed an appeal with the State PCDonnel Board. Prior to hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer revoking the letter ofr eprimand and issuing a leiter of instruction. The OIG concurred because the officer accepted responsibility at the Slrelly hearing and the department attorney discovered potential evidentiary problems wllile preparing for hearing that would have been discovered earlier had the department conducted an investigation. Dbcipllnary Anessment Ovenll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Sufficient Sllflicic:nt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 118 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-10-18 16-0002141-IR L Weapons 1. Suatained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Threat/Intimidation 2. Suatained 3. Theft 3. Suatained 4. Batle!y 4. Suatained 5. Controlled Subatanges 5. Suatained 6. Neglect ofD uty 6. Suatained 7. DisQOUdeoua Treatment 7. Suatained 8. Other Failure ofG ood Bebavior 8. Suatained Case Type: Administnltive Investigation Incident Summary Between October 18, 2016, and November 11,2016, an oflioer allegedly uaed synthetic marijuana. On November 11, 2016, the officer allegedly possessed pacbgea of synthetic marijuana and screamed at and tried to grab a postal worl<er by the throat. On November 25, 2016, the officer allegedly stole food from a pizza delivery driver, cursed at and threatened to kill outside law enfuroement officen, and cursed at a neighbor and outside hospital employees. He was subsequently arrested and allegedly miled to report his am:st to the hiring authority. On Deoember 7, 2016, the officer allegedly physically threatened a lieutenant and swcm: at the lieutenant and other departmental employees. On December 7, 2016, and December 13,2016, the officer allegedly posted tlm:atening and derogatoty comments about departmental employeea on a soeial networking site. On December 9, 2016, the oflioer allegedly identified himselfa s an officer to a hardwan: store employee and made derogatoty comments reganling the employee's sexual orientation. On Januaey 21, 2017, the oflioer allegedly threatened to kill his roommate with a knife, slashed the roommate's tires, biUldished the knife at outside law enfuroement officen, and resisted am:st. Pre-dlsdpllnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with prooedures governing the pre-diaciplinaty proceas because the department attorney did not n-.ke any entty into the case management system confinning relevant dates. Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 IDallffic:ient Suflic:icnt A11es1ment Questions a Within 11 ealcDdar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~ea die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry inlo die cue management ~Y~tem confirming die date of die reported IDcldent,dle date of d!K:overy, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any eueption1lo die deadiiDe knOWD at die time? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney did not make any enfly into the case management system c01!{11111ing relevant dates. Case Dbpoaltion Tbe hiring authority suatsined the allegations and diami!aed the oflioer. Tbe OIG concum:d Tbe officer did not file an appeal with the State Peraonnel Board Dbdpllnary Anessment Ovcnll, the department sufficiently complied with policiea and procedures governing the disciplinaty prooess. Pnleedural Ratin1 Substantive Ratin1 Suffident Suflic:icnt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 119 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10-18 17-0021669-IR l. Dishonesty l. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Diacrimination!Harusment 2. Not Sustained 3. Neglect of Duty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminiliu.tive Investigation Incident Summary On October 18,2016, a supervising parole agent allegedly ftllsely claimed a parole adminiatrator failed to respond to her email messages, causing the parole adminiatratorto receive a letter of instruction. On November 8, 2016, a regional parole administrator allegedly inappropriately iasued a letter of instruction to the parole adminiatratorwithout ensuring the infurmation was accwate. On November 16, 2016, the regional pamle administrator allegedly involuntarily transft:rred anothersupervisingparole agent to anothcrpamle unit based on the superviaingparoie agenfs age. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Overall, the department sufficiently ccmplied with policies and procedures soveming the pre-disciplinaly pltKlCss. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Su.f!icient Sufficient Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-10-25 16-0002095-IR l. Intoxication l. Sustained Diamiaaal Diamiaaal 2. Other Failure ofG ood Bebavior 2. Sustained 3. Other Failure ofG ood Bebavior 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On October 25, 2016, oulaide law enforcement arrested an officer after be allegedly drove under the influence ofa lccbol while hia drivel's license was suspended and possessed drugpuapbemalia. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department sufficiently ccmplied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dseiplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Case Dbposltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations that the officer drove while under the influence ofa lcohol and on a suspended license, but not that be possessed drug puapbemalia. Tbe hiring authority ccmbined the allegations fiom thia case with another case and served the officer with a notice ofd iamiaaal. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. However, the officer resigned before the diaeiplinaly action took ef!bct. Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the officet's official personnel file indicating he resigned pending diaeiplinsry action. Dbcipllnary Aneument Tbe department sufficiently ccmplied with policies and procedures governing the diaeiplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Su.f!icient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 120 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegatlon1 Ftndinp Inldal Penalty Final Penalty 2016-11-03 16-0002150-IR 1. Controlled Substancea l.Sustained Diamiaaal Resignation in Lieu ofTermination Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On November 3, 2016, an officer allegedly tested positive for cocaine. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Subttandve Radng Sufficient Suflklient Case Dlapotldon The hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the officer. The OIG concum:d. The officer filed an appeal with the State Penlonnel Boanl. Prior to the State Penonnel Board proceeding, the hiring authority reached a settlement agreement with the offioer wbetein the officer resigned in lieu ofd isminal and agreed to never seek employment with the department in the fulure. The OIG concurred because the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the oflioer did not work for the department was achieved. Dbcipllnary Aneument Overall, the department suflkliently complied with policies and prooedures sovemint the disciplinary prooess. Procedural Radng Subltandve Radng Sufficient Suflklient I Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegatlon• Ftndlngs Inldal Penalty Final Penalty 2016-11~4 17~00006(}-IR 1. Discourteous Treatment 1. Sustained Letter ofinatrudion Letter of Instruction 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On November 4, 2016, an officer allegedly ntiaed his voioe and used profilne language towards school employees in the preaenoe ofe lementary-qe children. On November 7, 2017, the officer was allegedly disbonest to outside law enforcement when he said he left his personal firearm at home prior to arriving at the school. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Subttandve Radng Sufficient Suflklient Case Dlapotldon The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer was discourteous to school emplo)'a's, but not the remaining allegation, and issued the officer a letter of instruction. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Subltandve Radng Sufficient Suflklient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 121 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-11-18 16-0002164-IR 1. Threat/Inlimidation 1. Suatained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Neglect ofD uty 2. Suatained 3. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 3. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On November 18, 2016, outside law enftmlement arrested an officer for allegedly being in a physical altercation with and fii!Bely impriBoning his girlfiiend. The officer a!Bo allegedly threatened outside law enforcement with knives and failed to report his arrest to the hiring authority. On March 15, 2017, the officer suffered a misdemeanor conviction for threatening outside law enforcement with weapons. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-diaciplinaly process becauae the department attorney did not modifY the deadline to take diaciplinaly action. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating IDallffic:ient Sufficiatt I Anes1ment Questions o Did the dep.n-nt attnmey appropriately determine that the deadline for taldng dbdpllnary action u originally ulenlated 1ho111d be modified UJd CODIIllt with the OIG Uld 1pecW agent? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did not make an entry ill the case management system to note the modijicotion of the deadlillefor tokillg disciplinary action after the officer's conviction. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority suatained the allegations and served a notice ofd iamiaaal. The OIG concurred. However, the officer reaigned before the diaciplinary action took effect.T he hiring authority pJ8(:ed a letter in the officer's official personnel file indicating he resigned pending diaciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 122 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-12-04 17-0000 103-IR 1. Intoxication 1. Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. Intoxication 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Di=t Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On Dooember 4, 2016, oulside law enfonlCment arrested an usociate warden for allesedly driving Ullder the influence of alcohol resulting in property damage to another vehicle, and the usociate warden subsequently suffi:red a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures gcverning the pre-dsciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating &lffic:icnt Suffic:ient I Case Dlaposltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation the usociate warden suffered a conviction for driving under the inftuence, but not the remaining allegation, and served a fi-working-day suspension. Tbe OIG concwred with the hiring authority's detenninstion. The usociate wuden did not file an appeal with the State PCI!IOnnel Board. Dbcipllnary Aneument Ovcnll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating &lffic:icnt Suffic:ic:nt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 123 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA South lnddent Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 201W7-1S 16-0002134-IR 1. Diahoncaty 1. Sustained Dillmisaal Dismiaaal Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Inveatiption Incident Summary On July 15, 2014, a lieulenant allegedly wrote and signed a fil1ae report using an officer's name. Pre-dlsclpllnary Anes1ment Tbe department did not comply with pltKledurea governing the pre-diaciplinuy process because the department attorney neglected to aaaeas the deadline for tslring diaciplinuy action. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauffic:ient Sufficient Anessment Questions • Within 11 ealendar day1, did die dep.n-nt attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~eadle deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry inlo die cue manage_..t ~Y~tem confirming 1he dm of die reporiM IDeldent,dle dm of dbeovery, die deadline for taldDg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any esceptlDollo 1he deadliDe lmcnm at die time? 1114 tkpartment attorney did not make any entty into the case management system c01!{1Tming relevant date3. • Wu die IDvatJcative dnft report provided 1o die OIG for review dloro11gh and ~proprlaldy drafiM? 1114 draft report did not contoin the result3 ofa request from an inmate for a copy of a rule3 violation form. Case Dbp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the lieutenant with a notice ofd iamiasal. Tbe OIG concurred. However, the lieulenant reaigned befure the disciplinary action took effi:cL Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the lieutenant's official penonnel file indicating be reaigned pending disciplinary action. Dbclpllnary Anessment Tbe department aufliciently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 124 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~6-12 15-0001994-IR L Dishonesty 1. Suatained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Other Failure ofG ood Bebavior 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On June 12, 2015, an officer allesedly threatened to lrill a second officer and the second officer's children and wu dishonest to outside law enforcement about the incident. On Auaust 30, 2016, the officer suffi:red a misdemeanor oonviction fur malring criminal threats. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dsciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Suflicient Sufficient I Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority suatsincd the allegations and detennincd diamisaal wu the appropriate penalty. Tbe OIG ooncurred. However, the hiring authority non-punitively tenninated the officer befure disciplinuy action oould be imposed Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the officet's official personnel file indicating the offioer's non-punitiw tennination was pending diBciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the diBciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~8~1 17~21661-IR L Diahonesty 1. Suatained Dismissal Diami!aal 2. Owr-Familiarity 2. Suatained 3. Controlled Substances 3. Suatained 4. Contnlband 4. Suatained 5. InsubOidination 5. Suatained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary Between August 1, 2015, and July 30, 2016, an officer allegecDy conspired to introduce mobile phones into the institution, provided mobile phones to inmates, and communicated with inmates and inmates' fiunilies without authorization. On June 2, 2016, the officer allesedly possessed illegal steroids and wu allegecDy diBhonest during an interview with the Office ofI nternal Aflilirs. On March 22, 2017, the officer allesedly disobeyed an order from the Office of Internal Affairs to submit to a subsequentinterview. Pre-disciplinary Anestment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dscipinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Suflicient Sufficient I Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority suatsincd the allegations and detennincd diamisaal wu the appropriate penalty. Tbe OIG ooncurred. However, the officer resigned before diBciplinsry action could be imposed Tbe hiring authority placed a letter in the office is official personnel file indicating he resigned pending diBciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the diBciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Suflicient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 125 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegationt Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-00-29 15-0002541-IR 1. DiBbonesty 1. Suatained Salary Reduction Saluy Reduction 2. Contraband 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On September 29, 2015, an offioer allegedly introduced a mobile phone into the inlltitution and, when questioned, allesedJy fililed to discloae to a manager that he po~~~eSsed the phone. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinaryproeeaa becauae the Office ofI nternal AfliliD refused to open an administrative investigation and add the associate wuden aa a subject, the department attorney and the employee relations officer did not confirm relevant dates, the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings conference, and the hiring authorities made inlluflicient findings. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating lnauflicient Inaufficient I Anestment Questions o Did the Olllee of Internal Aft"ldn mlll<e an appropriate lnltW determination regarding the eue? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs refused to add a11 OS3odate warrkn as a subjecl oft he inV«fftigatiollfor alkgedlyjaiU11g to thoroughly search the offJCet" aNI rqiued to open a11 administrative inV«fftigatioll MIU33a'Y to adequately addre33 the allegations. • Within 11 ealcndar day1, did the department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer eorrectly a~ea the deadline for taldng dbelpllnary aetlnn and mlll<e an entry lntn the eue management i!Yifem confirming the date of the reported Incident, the date of dbeovery, the deadline for taldng dbelpllnary aetlnn, and any eueptlon1 tn the deadline known at the time? Neither the emp{qyu relatiolls offker 110r the department attonrey, both of whom were assig~~ed to the Cll3e at di.lferentjullctures,made allY mtry into the C03e ma~~agemem system colljirmi11g relevant datu. • Did the HA timely collllllt with the OIG aod department attorney {If applleablc), regarding the 10lllclcncy of the lnvatlgatlon and the lnvatlgatlve flndlnp? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkted its inV«fftigatioll aNI rqen-ed the matter to the hiring authority 011 June 7, 2016. However, the hiring authority did 11ot coiiSUit with the OIG aNI the department attomey reganling the suffidmcy of the imrestigatto11 a11d the inV«fftigativeftndings ulltiiAugust 31, 2016, 85 days thereafter. o Han necotlve review wu Invoked In the eue, did OIG reqliCit the e:rec11tlve review'! Th4 OIG did 11ot agree with the pmalty a11d elevaud the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. At the higher level of nwiew, the hiri11g authority's supervisorf ound insuffkient evidmce to sustain the dish011esty allegati011. Th4 OIG aNI the department attorney disagrud aNI both sought a higher level of nwiew. • Han necotlve review wu Invoked, wu the appropriate decblon made? Th4 deputy direclor appropriately 311Stained the allegatiolls, includillg dish011t!3ty, but the OIG disagreed with the pmalty imposed. o Did the departmeut colld11ct the pre-dbelp11nary/lnveltlgatlve phue with du d111gence? Th4 de{qy is addre3sed in a p..Wr quutio11. Case Dltpotldon The hiring authority suatained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent aa1uy reduction for 24 months. The OIG did not agree with the penalty and elewtcd the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. At the higher level of review, the hiring authority's supervisor did not sustain diBhonesty. The OIG and deplrtment attorney disagreed and both soucht a hisher level ofr eview. The deputy director suatained the allegations, including dishonesty, but impoaed a 10 percent aa1uy reduction fur 24 months. The OIG did not cooour with the penalty but could not seek: a hisher level of review becauae the deadline fur taking diacipliDary action was about to expire. The offioer filed an appesl with the State Penooncl Board Prior to the hesriDg, the officer withdrew his appesl. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the discipliDaryprocess becauae the hiring authority did not conduct the disciplinary findings confbrence in a timely manner or aelect the appropriate pen8lty. The department attorney did not provide written confirmation ofpen8lty discuaaiOJJS. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating lnauflicient Inaufficient I Anestment Questions o Did the HA timely collllllt with the OIG aod the department attnmey {If appHcablc) regarding dbelpllnary determlnatloiQI prlnr to making a final decblon? Th4 Offic4 oflllternal Affairs compkted its inV«fftigatioll aNI rqen-ed the matter to the hiring authority 011 June 7, 2016. However, the hiring authority did 11ot coiiSUit with the OIG aNI the department attomey reganling the disciplillary detemtinattom until August 31, 201 6; 85 days thereafter. o Did the HA who partldpated In the dtlclpllnary coofereDCe ICicct the appropriate penalty'! SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 126 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA The hiring authority imposed a salary reduction when the OIG recommended dismissal. Did the department attorney provide to the HA and OIG writtm confirmation of penalty dbe1111ionl? The department attorney did not provide written cot!finnation ofp enalty discussions. Han eueative review wu invoked in the cue, did OIG reqae~t the e:ueutive review? The OIG did not agree with the penalty and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. AJ the higher level ofr eview, the hiring authority's supervisor did not sustain the dishotwty aUegation despite sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG and department attorney disagreed and both sought a higher level of~ Han eueative review wu invoked, wu the appropriate dedslon made? The deputy director appropriately sustained the allegations, including dishonesty, but imposed a salary reduction instead ofd ismissal, which is the appropriate penalty for the misconduct. Did the department attorney or employee relatlo01 offleer cooperate with and provide continual real-time consultation with the OIG throughout the dbelplinary phue? The department attorney did not provide written cot!finnation ofp enalty discussions. Wu the dbdpllnary plwe conducted with due dDigenee by the department? The delay is addressed in a prior question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 20I 7 Page I27 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-10-25 15-0002762-IR L Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Suatained Demotion Demotion Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On October 25, 2015, outside law enfoi"QCIIlent am:sted a 5CiiCanl after he allegedly puahed his girlfriend onto a couch, grabbed her neck with both hands, and attempted to stranc~e her. On July 25, 2016, the officer suffered misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence and lillae imprisonment Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures soverning the prc-diaciplinaly p100eaa becsuae the department attorney did not make a timely entry in the case IIUIIUigCmcnt system or oom:ctly assess the effi>ct of tolling on the deadline for taking diaciplinaly action, and the hiring authority did not timely consult regarding the investigatiw findings. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insuftk:iCIIt Sufficient Anessment Questions o Within 11 ealeDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar mrnctly --the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDlo the cue management I!YIIem eontlnntng the date of the reporiM IDeldent, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any escept1Do11D the deadliDe lmcnm at the time? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney Wll3 assigned 011 December 19, 1015, but did not make an e11t1y imo the case management systmt regarding the deadline for Uzlrillg disciplinary action Ulltil March 25, 2016, 87 days after anigt~~~~ent. o Did the dep.n-nt attoroey appropriately determine that tile delldllne for taldng dbelpliDary aetlon u orfclnally ealenlated 1ho11id be modified and eonllllt with the OIG and 1peeW agent? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney incOITtiCtly asst!3sed the tolling oft he tkadline for t4lrillg disciplinaty action. The deadline for Uzlrillg disciplinary acti011 was tol/«1 until the criminal prosecution was completed 011 July 15, 1016. The department attorney assessed the deadline for t4lrillg disciplinaty acti011 as May 10, 2017, when the actual deadline was July 15, 1017. hi addition, the tkpartment atkmleyf ailed to consult the OIG about modifying the deadline for Uzlrillg disciplinary actt471. o Did the HA timely eoDIIllt with the OIG and dep.rtmnt attorney {If applleablc), regardiDg the llllllelcney of tile IDvatlgatlon and the IDvatlgatlve flndiDp? Th4 criminal proceedings were completed July 15, 1016. However, the hiring authorily did not consult with the OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency oft he evidence and the jitlditlgs Ulltil JanUaty 17, 1017, six mOIIths thereafter. o Did the dep.n-nt eond11et the pre-dlxlpllnary/lnveltlgatlve phue with dDe dlllcenee? Th4 tklays are addressed ill prior questioNI. Case Disposition The hiring authority sualained the allegation and demoted the ICIJeanl The OIG oonwrred. However, the hiring authority alao non-punitiwly terminated the sCIJC&Dl befure the disciplinary action took effi>ct. The hiring authority placed a letter in the SC'ieanfs official personnel file confirming the pending disciplinary action. Dbcipllnary Anessment The deputmCIIt sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating &lfficicnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 128 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m.-23 16-0001393-IR 1. Misuse of Authority 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Saluy Reduction 2. Diacowteous Treatment 2. Not Sualained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On February 23, 2016, a parole qent allesedly used a Stale-iMued badge to identify himself as a parole apt to a oollege student while questioning tile student about non work-related matten, cwsed at and threatened the student, and physically gnlbbed and pushed a witness who was trying to stop a fight between the parole agent's daughter and tile student. J>re.dlscipllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing tile prc-diaciplirully proceas because the department attorney incom:ctly assessed tile deadline fur taking diaciplinaly action. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallffic:ient Sllfficic:nt I Anes1ment Questions ln-. o Within 11 ealcndar day1, did die department attorney or employee rel.atloiQI oftleer eorreetly a~eadle deadline for tUIDg dbelpllnary action and make an entry die cue manage~M~~t ~Y~tem confirming die date of die reported IDcldent, die date of dbeovery, die deadline for tUIDg dbelpllnary action, and any eueptioD1 to die deadline kncnm at die time? 1114 tkpartment attorney asst/33«1 the deadline for taking disciplinary action as February 22, 2017, whm the deadline was actually February 25, 2017. Case Dlaposltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation tile parole apt miBuaed his Stale identification, but not tile "'Q.ining allegations, and imposed a 5 penlent salary reduction fur th= months. The OIG concurred. The put~le agent did not file an appeal with tile Stale Personnel Board. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with the policies and procedures governing tile diaciplirully proceas. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Su.f!icient Sllfficic:nt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 129 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-16 17-(1021671-IR LUaeofFmce L Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Administnltive Investigation Incident Sullllllllry On March 16, 2016, an officer &llesedly failed to ldiwte biB pen10n&l alarm when fiwed with an inmate who wu ~QiBting, failed to haw a aeoond oflicerpreaent while oonduding a cell search, and failed to accurately document his use offtmle on the inmate. Pre-disciplinary Anea1ment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-diaciplinaly proceas bllCIIuae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affilirs, the Office of Intem&l Aflililll did not ...te appropriate determinations reganling the initial and appeal tequesta, and the special agent did not adequately cooperate with the OIG or prepare a thorouah inveatigatiw report. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDaufficient Sufficient Aneasment Queations • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affair~ wlthiD 45 ealcndar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on March 22, 2016, but the hiring authority did not n(er the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affairs until May U, 2016, 63 days after the dau of discovery. • Did die Offiee of lutem al Afl"aln make m appropriate milial determtDatiou regardt ug die cue? Th4 Office ofI nurnal Affairs initially rqect«l the hiring authority's Ttf(/Uest for an investigation even though there was sufficimt evitknu; of misconduct. o If the htrtug mthorlty mbmitted a requat for reconllderatioD, dtd the Office of Internal A«aan make m -tJpropriate decilloD regardtug the request? After the hiring authority submitted a Ttf(/Uest for 1ftCOIISideration, the O.ffiu; of Internal AffaiT3 approved an investigation into the illcidmt However, the Office oflnternal Affairs did not add a dishonesty allegation despite evidmu; that the offker submitted a false 1f1POTt o Upou completloD of die IDvelll.gatlou, wu a draft copy of the mvatlgatl.ve report timely fonJarded to the OIG to allow for feedback before It wu forwarded to the HA or pro~eellti.Dg qeney? Th4 special agem.[orwarded the investigative 1flpOTt to the hirillg authorily before the OIG providedf eedback. o Wu die fiDal mvelll.gatl.ve report 1horo11gh md -tJpropriately drafted? Th4 jinal investigative rq;oTt did not illclut/4 the offker's post order3. o Did die ~~pedal agent cooperate wl1h &Dd provide conti.Dilal real-time coniDitatl.on wl1h die OIG? Th4 special agelll did not adequauly consult with the OIG regarding the draft investigative rq;ort o Did die deparn.nt cond11ct die pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelll.gatl.ve phue wl1h due dlllcence? Th4 tklay is addressed ill a prior question. Case Disposition The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the alleptions. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 130 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-m-20 16-0001863-IR L Mediaii-Denied Care L Not Sustained No Penalty Impoaed No Penalty Impoaed 2. Medicai-Unclctermined/Othcr 2. Not Sustained 3. NesJ.ect ofD uty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investiption Incident Sullllllllry On Much 20, 2016 a captain, a lieutenant, and a seiJCU!l allegedly fililed to mqueat and oonfinn mental health services wen: provided to an inmate, an officer allegedly fililed to IXlllCiuct mquin:d wdfilnl checb while the inmate wu in a holding cell, and a nUJlle allegedly fililed to timely respond to a request fur an examination. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures soverning the pre-diaciplinaly process becauae the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofinternsl Affilirs and the biring aulhority fur the llUiliC did not timely IXlllCiuct the inwstiptive findings confbrence. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on March 20, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rqer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs until July 22, 2016, 1U days after the date of di3covery. o Did tile HA timely collftlt wltll tile OIG uut departmnt attorney (If applieable), regarding the nfficleDcy of the lnvatlgatlnn uut the lnvatlgalive findings? 1114 Office ofl ntemal Affairs completed its investigation and rdu1114d the matier to the hiring authority on Jaflllllry 26, 2017. However, the hiring authority for the mme did not consult with the OIG and the tkpartment atiorney reganlillg the sujJiciency oft he investigation and the investigative findings until February 28, 2017, 33 daJ13 thenJafter. o Did tile department conduct tile pre-dixlpllnuy/laveltlgalive phue wltll due dntgeace? 1114 tklays a1ft addressed ill p..Wr questions. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring aulhorities found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 131 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 201641-(11 16-0001747-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Adminislnltive Investigation Incident Summary On Apri11, 2016, an offioer allegedly fililed to timely ldiwte biB personal alarm, resulting in delayed emeiJCilcy medical treatment for an inmate. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdures soverning the pre-disciplinaly proceas because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Af!ilirs and fililed to conduct the investigative findings conference in a timely manner, and the department attorney nepected to timely enter infurmation into the case management system, fililed to provide reedback reguding the investigative tq~orl, and did not adequately consult with the special agent. Subttantive Rating Sufticient Assessment Questions o Wu tile matter nferred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? 1114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alleg«J mi3conducl on April1, 2016, but the hiring authorily did not refer the matter to the Office oflnternal Affairs until June 1, 2016, 61 daJ13 ofter the date ofd i3covery. o WtthiD 11 calendar day1, did tile departmot attorney or employee relatlou offleer cornctly Ulal tile deadline for tUIDg dbclpliDary actioo and make an entry Into tile cue management l)'lltem confirming the date of the reported Incident, tile date of d!K:overy, tile deadline for tUIDg dbclpliDary actioo, and any eueptlnn1 to the deadline knOWD at tile time? 1114 tkpartment attorney Wll3 assigned June 30, 2016, but did not makie an entry into the case management system regardillg the deodlillef or taking discipunary action until July 28, 2016, 28 days after assignmen4 and listed the incorrect y«~T for the deodlille. o WtthiD 11 calendar day• following receipt of the lnveltfcatlve report, did the department attorney review tile report and provide appropriate nbltantive feedbael< addnllling tile tlloroughneu and clarity oft he report? 1114 tkpartment attorney did nat provide any feedback to the special agent regarding the investigative rq;oTt. o Did tile departmeut attorney provide written confirmation 11U1l111Uizing all crittcal. dbc1111lon1 about tile tnvatigatlve report to the 1pecW agent wltll a copy to tile OIG? 1114 tkpartment attorney did nat provide written confirmation regardillg the investigative report to the sp«ial agent or the OIG. o Did tile HA timely C0111Plt wltll tile OIG and departmot attorney {If applleablc), regarding the nlllclcucy of the lnvatlgatlon and the lnvatigatlve ftndlnp? 1114 Office ofI nternal Affairs completed its investigation ond referred the matter to the hiring authority on Deamber 16, 2016. However, the hiring authority did nat consult with the OIG and the department attorney regardillg the suflkiency oft he investigation and the investigative findings untO January 17, 2017, 32 daJ13 thereafter. o Did tile ~pecW agent and department attorney cooperate and provide real-time coniP!tatlon wltll each other throughout tile pn-ilbclpllnary phue? 1114 tkpartment attorney did natprovidefeedbackto the SJ"'Cial agent regarding the draft investigative report. o Did tile departmeut conduct tile pre-dbclpliDary/lnveltigatlve phue wltll due diligence? 1114 tklays are addressed in p..Wr questioiiS. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority round insufficient evidence to suatain the allegation. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 132 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 201641-14 17-0021731-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty l.Suslained LeUer ofI nstruction LeUer of Instruction 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Not Sualained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On Apri114, 2016, an officer allegedly fililed to complete an adequate security check, fililed to discover an inmate hanging with a noose around the inmate's neck, entered the inmate's cell befure notifying a sergeant, and fililed to complete an incident lq)Ort before leaving worlr. Pre-disciplinary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Insufficient Sufficient Assessment Questions o Wu tile matRr nferred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 caleDdar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d of the alleg«J mi3conducl on April U, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rr;fer the matter to the Offke ofI nternal Affairs until January 18, 2017, 2 79 days after the date of discovery. o Did tile departmeut coDduct tile pn-dbclpliDuy/IDvelligative phue w1t11 due dlllgmee? 1'114 tklay is address«/ in a prior question. Case Dbpoaltlon Tbe hiriDg authority sustained the allegation for entering the cell, but not the remaining allegations, and issued a letter of instruction. Tbe OIG concurred with the finding& but not with the letter of instruction. The OIG did not seek a higber levd of review becauae the penalty was within the department's disciplinuy guidelines. Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 133 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-04-29 16-0002028-IR 1. Miau se ofA uthority 1. Suataincd Leiter ofReprimand Leiter ofR eprimand Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary Between April29, 2016, UJd September 27, 2016, a seiJCP!l &llesedJy directed officers on two occuions to esoort her cousin, an inmate at the il!lltitution, from the inmate's bouBing unit to the sergeant's location fur persOilal reasons. Pre-dltcipllnary Anemnent The department did not comply with pltKlCdures governing the pre-disciplinuy process becaw~C the hiring authority did not timely oonduct the investigative findings oonfetenee. The employee relations officer did not make requin:d entries into the case management S)'lltem. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallffic:ient Sllfficic:nt I Atses1ment Questions o Wltldn 11 ealcndar day1, did die department attorney or employee relatloiQI oftleer correctly a~eadle deadline for tU!Dg dbelpllnary aetioD and make an entry ln-.dle cue manage~M~~t ~Y~tem confirming die date of die reported Incident, die date of d!K:overy, die deadline for tU!Dg dbelpllnary aetioD, and any eueptino1 m die deadline kncnm at die time? 1114 empwyee relations off~CU did not malr4 any entry inW the case management 3)13tem confirming relevant dates. o Did die HA timely oonmlt widl die OIG and department attorney (If applleable), regarding die nfficlency of the lnvatigatlon and die lnvatlgative ftndlnp? 1114 Offic4 ofI ntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority 011 November 9, 2016. However, the hiring authority did not COII3Ult with the OIG reganlillg the sujJidency oft he evidella and thejindillg3 until January 10, 2017, 62 daJ13 thereafter. o Did die department oondnct die pn-dbelpllnaryllnveltlgative phue wi1h dne diligence? 1114 delay is addre33«l ill a p..Wr quution. Case Dbpotltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand. The OIG ooncurred. The SC'ieant did not file an appeal with the State Penonnel Board Dbcipllnary Anessment Ovenll, the department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinaly proce88 Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Suffic:icnt Sllfficic:nt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 134 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegationt Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-24 16-0002101-IR L Neglect of Duty L Unfu\lllded No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Administnllive Inveatiption Incident Sullllllary On May 24, 2016, two oflicCill allegedly failed to report that an inmate resisted while the ofliCCill applied handcufiS on the inmate. Pre-dltcipllnary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdurea soverning the pre-diaciplinaly process becaw~C the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Office of InlertW Aflilirs, and the department attorney did not adequately conault with the OIG. Pnleedunl Ratln1 Substantive Ratln1 Inallfficient Sufficient Attetlment Questions • Wu die matter ~ferred to the Ofllee of IDternal Affidrl wldlln 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 tkpartment kam4d of tile allegal misconduct on September 20, 201 6, but tile hiring authority did not rqer tlr4 matter to tile Office of Internal Affairs until November 7, 2016, 48 days after tile date of disoovery. • Did die department attorney provide written CIOilflrmatlon 11Uillllal'lzlng all erltlcal dbcUIIiODI abo11t die Invatlgative report to the 1peeW agent wl1h a copy to die OIG? Tlr4 tkpartment attorney neglect«/ to provide tile OIG with written confirmation sUIIfltlarizillg critical discussions about tile invutigottve report o Did die department attorney cooperate with and provide cootlnnal real-time counltatlon with the OIG thro11gho11t die pre-illlclpllnary phue? Tlr4 tkpartment attorney neglect«/ to provide tile OIG with written confirmation sUIIfltlarizillg critical discussions about tile invutigottve report a Did die department cond11ct die pn-dbclplinaryllnvelllgative phue wl1h du diligence? Tlr4 tklay is address«/ in a p..Wr question. Case Dbpoaltion Tbe hiring authority determined that the inveatigation conclusively proved the misconduct did not ooour. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 135 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-{18 16-0001873-IR 1. Diahoncaty 1. Not Suatained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imposed 2. Use ofForce 2. Not Suatained 3. NeaJ.ect ofD uty 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident Summary On June 8, 2016, a 5eliCanl and two oflicen1 allegedly deployed pepper spray on inmates wbo we"' on the ground with hands behind their ])a(lb, and the setgeant and one oft he ofli0en1 allegedly dep!O)"'d the pepper spray from leas than six feet. The two oflicem allesedly miled to "'Pori their own uaea off orce, and the fint officer allegedly miled to "'PQrl the scqcant'a use off orce. The seoond officer allegedly fillsely "'PQrted that he observed inmates fishting. A thin! officer allegedly mied to submit a "'POri "'guding the incident Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-diaciplinaly p100eas because the hiring autbority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs, and the department attorney did not attend key interviews. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Iaauflicient Sufficient Anestment Questions o Wu tile matter referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wlthlll 45 ealendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? 1'114 tkpartment ka1114d oft he alleg«J mi3conducl on June 8, 2016, but the hiring autlrority did not rqer the matter w the OffiCe ofI nternal Affair3 until July 27, 2016, 49 da)l3 ofter the date ofd i3covery. o Did tile departmeut attorney atteDd IDvatigative IDtervleM for key witDa~a to a.ea wltna1 demeauor aDd credlblllty? 1'114 tkpartment a3Signed one attorney w attend several simultaneous inlerviewa conducted by two groupa ofs pecial agents. 1'114rqont, the deplll'tmellt atWrney missed one-halfo ft he interviews. o Did tile departmeut coDduct tile pre-dixlpliDuy/IDvelligative phue w1t11 due dntgeuce? 1'114 tklay is addressed in a p..Wr question. Case Dbp01ltlon The hiriDg authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations. The OIG conlllllnld. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 136 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016~-11 16-000 1983-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Diamisssl Dismiassl 2. Neglect ofDuty 2. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sununary On June 11, 2016, an officer sllegcdly fililed to properly conduct inmate counts, resulting in a fililure to notice that an inmate had escaped The officer also sllegecD.y falsely documented conducting the oounts. Pre-disclpllnary Anemnent The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-dsciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Su.f!icient Sufticient Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the sllegations and served the officer with a notice of diamisssl. The OIG ooncwred However, the officer reaigned befure the disciplinary action took effect. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officel's official personnel file indicating she resigned pending disciplinary action. Dlsclpllnary Anemaent Owrsll, the department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures gowrning the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Su.f!icient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 137 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-07-10 16-0001931-IR 1. Intoxication 1. Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On July 10, 2016, an offioer wu arrested fur allegedly driving biB vehicle under the influenoe ofalcobol. On July 11, 2016, the offioer wu allegedly diBhonest in a memorandum to the hiring authority regarding his am:sl Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tile department did not comply with prooedures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely refer the matter to the Offioe of Internal Af!ilirs. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating Inaufficient Sufficient I Anestment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Oftlee of IDtemal Affairl wlti!.ID 45 ealcDd..-da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? 1114 tkpartment karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on July 11, 2016, but the hiring authority did 1101 rqer the matter w the Office of Internal AffaiT3 tmtil August 29, 2016, 49 days after the dat4 of discovery. • Did die departmeut coDduct die pre-dbclpl.IDary/IDvertlgative phue wltiJ due dlllgmee? 1114 tklay is address«/ ill a p..Wr question. Case Dlsp01ltion Tile hiring authority sustained the allegation ofd riving under the influence, but not diBhonesty, and issued a three-wcrking-day suspension. Tile OIG concurred. The offioer filed an appeal with the State PenonDCi Boanl but later withdrew the appeal. Disciplinary Anessment The departmentsufficiently complied with policies and prooedures governing the disciplinaryprooess. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 138 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-07-25 16-0001925-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On July 25, 2016, an officer allegedly provided lillse statemeniB to two lieutenants reprding the confiscation and destruction ofi nmate property and produced a fO!Jed property moeipt. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplirully process because the hiring authority did not conduct the investigative findings conference in a timely manner. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating lDallfficicnt Sufficiatt I Anes1ment Questions • Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG Uld dep.._.,t attorney {If applleablc), regarding the olllclcncy of the lnvatlgatlon Uld the lnvatlgatlve flndlnp? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkted its illwsligation and rqen-ed the matter to the hiring authority on JatiUiJry 16, 1017. However; the hiring authority did not cONiult with the OIG and department ali0111ey regarding the sufficiency oft he evidence and the. findings until March 8, 1017, 41 days thereafter. • Did the dep.n-nt condllct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dDC diligence? Th4 delay is address«/ ill a p..Wr question. Case Dlaposltlon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 139 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-07-29 16-0002007-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imp011ed No Penalty Imposed Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On July 29, 2016, a caplllin allesedly withheld pertinent infurmation from an uaociate warden about sending a &e'!!eant home and on Auaust 22,2016, allesedly fillsely told the uaociate wanlen that he bad not iMued corrective action apimlt the 8e'I!Cant. On Auaust 3, 2016, the captain allegedly lied to a SC'!!Cant "'garding oorrective action against an officer and on AugustS, 2016, allegedly lied in a memonndum to the uaociate warden. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department did not comply with pltKledures governing the pre-disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflilirs, and the department attorney did not make a timely entry in the case management system "'garding relewnt dates. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Inauffic:ient Sufficiatt I Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Af'fidrl wlthl11 45 ealeDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmetll karMd oft he alleged misconduct on August 4, 2016, but the hiring authority did not rqtJr the mater to the Office oflnttJI'tlal Affairs until October 3, 2016, 60 days after discovery. o WltldD 11 ealcDdar day1, did the departmut attorney or employee relatlo~U oftleer eorreetly UICSII the deadliDe for taldDg dbelpliDary aetioD and make aD entry IDto the cue maugeiiiCIIt 1)'11tem confirmiDg the dm of the reported IDcidCDt, the dm of dbeovery, the deadliDe for taldDg dbelpliDary aetioD, aDd &D)' eueptilm1 to the deadliDe lrnOWD at the time? Th4 tkpartmetll att0111ey WIIS a33ign«< 011 NovembtJr 8, 2016, but did not make an entry into the case management S)l3tem regarding the tkadlillefor taking disciplillaty action until November 30, 2016, 22 days after assignment. o Did the depan-11t coDdllct the pre-dbclpliDary/IDveltlgatlve phue with dDe dlllgCDCe? Th4 tklay is address«/ ill a prior questio11. Case Dlsp01ltlon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegatfon1 Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-0S-03 16-0001924-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Not Sustained No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imp011ed 2. Misuse of Authority 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On Auaust 3, 2016, a supervising parole agent allegedly changed a parole agent's statements in a parole violation report and on August4, 2016, allegedly made a fillse statement in the parole violation report. Pre-disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and proced=s governing the P"'-diaciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Suffic:ient Sufficiatt Case Dlsp01ltlon The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 140 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-09-26 16-0002137-IR 1. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Not Suatailled No Penalty Imposed No Penalty Imp011ed Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On September 26, 2016, outside law enfonlement am:sted an officer after be allegedly grabbed his funner wife by the 11111 and tried to pull ber out ofa car. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Tbe department did not comply with pltKlCdures governing the disciplinaly pltKlCIII becaw~C the department did not condlwt the inVQ~tigative findings ~nee in a timely manner. Procedural Rating Subltantiw Rating Inauflicient Suflicient I Assessment Questions o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG uut departmnt attomey (If applieable), regarding the nfficleDcy of the lnvatigatlnn uut the lnvatlgalive flndlnp? 1'114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority on November 30, 2016. However, tlr4 hiring authority did not consult with tlr4 OIG and department attorney regarding the sufficiency oftlr4 evidellce and the illvestigotiwtjindings Ulltil JatllkJry 10, 2017, 41 days thereajw. o Did the departmeut coDduct the pn-dbclp11nary/1Dveltlgalive phue with du d111geuce? 1'114 delay is addresa«< in a p..Wr quution. Case Dispotition Tbe hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation. The OIG QOilcurred. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 141 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10-11 16-0002157-IR L Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Saluy Reduction 2. Diahoneaty 2. Not Sualained 3. Diacourfeoua Treatment 3. Not Sualained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On October 11, 2016, an officer allegedly fililed to take an inmate to a CO\LIU!eling seaaion, made disparaging remarb about the inmate, and was diahoneat to a lieutenant repnling the matter. J>re.dlscipllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diaciplirully proceaa because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings conference. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallfficient Sllfficic:nt I Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG Uld dep.._.,t attorney {If applleablc), regarding the ollldcney of the lnvatlgatlon Uld the lnvatlgatlve flndlnp? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority 011 December 11, 1016. Ho'IIM'et; the hiring authority did 11ot co113Uit with the OIG alld the deporimmt attorney regarding the sufficimcy of the evidmce alld the findings 1111til JaiiUary 30, 201 7, 40 days thereafter. a Did the dep..n.nt condllct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dDC diligence? Th4 delay is addressed in a prior questio11. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation the officer fitiled to take the inmate to a counselingseasion, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed aS saluy reduction fur three months. The OIG concum:d. The officer did not file an appesl with the State Personnel Board Dbcipllnary Anessment Overall, the department sufliciendy complied with the policiea and procedures governing the disciplinary proceaa. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating &Lfficicnt Sllfficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 142 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-10-18 17-0021919-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Diamiaaal Suapenaion 2. Other Failure of Good Behavior 2.Suatained 3. MiBuae of State Equipment or Property 3. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On October 18, 2016, an officer allegedly used hia State email to send penonal meaaases to hia ex-girlfriend. From November 5, 2016, through December 31, 2016, the officer allesedly harassed his ex-girlfriend by sending unwanted text meaasses using dummy telephone numbers and a dummy social networking site, and registering his ex-girlfriend on a pornographic webaite without her consent. On Janu.uy 4, 2017, the officer allesedly intentionally mialed a captain reprding his actions. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Owrall, the department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures sowmina the pre-disciplinuy process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dbp01ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. Tbe OIG ooncu.rred Following a Sk4lly hearing, the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 60-working-ilay suspension. Due to potential violations oftbe Public Safety Officers Bill ofR ights Act, the OIG concurred with the settlement. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegationt Findings Initial Pmalty Final Penalty 2016-11-04 16.0002126-IR 1. Controlled Substances 1. Sustained Dismissal Diamisaal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On Nowmber 4, 2016, an officer allesedly testedpositiw for marijuana. Pre-disciplinary Anes1ment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Disp01ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred. The officer did not file an appeal with the State PetSonnel Boanl. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 143 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegatlon1 Ftndinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-11-07 16-0002125-IR 1. Controlled Substancea l.Suatained Diamiaaal Resignation in Lieu ofTermination Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SullliUry On November 7, 2016, an officer allegedly tested positive for metbampbetamine. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Subttantive Radng Sufficient Suflklient Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the officer. The OIG ooncum:d. The officer filed an appeal with the State Penlonnel Bosnl. Prior to the State Penonnel Board proceedinga, the department entered into a settlement ag=ent with the officer whe"'by the officer a1=d to "'sign in lieu ofd ismissal. The OIG ooncum:d because the ultimate goal of ensuring the officer did not work fur the department wu acbieved Dbcipllnary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Substantive Radng Sufficient Suflklient I Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegation1 Flndinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-11-08 16-0002135-IR 1. Controlled Substanoes 1. Sustained Diamiasal Dismissal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SullliUry On November 8, 2016, a parole agent allegedly tested positive fur marijuana. Pre-disciplinary Anestment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the pre-daciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Substantive Radng Sufficient Suflklient I Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the parole agent with a notioe ofd ismissal. The OIG concum:d However, the parole agent "'signed befure the disciplinary action took effi:cl The hiring authority placed a letter in the parole agent's official penonnel file indicating he "'signed pending disciplinary action. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary proceas. Procedural Radng Substantive Radng Sufficient Suflklient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 144 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-11-15 17-0000108-IR 1. Neglect ofDuty 1. Sustained Suspenaion Suapenaion Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On November 15, 2016, two office111 &llesedly left a State van oontainins weapons and ammunition unlocked and unattended afterparlring it on a public street near a courthouse. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent Owr&ll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures sovemina the pre-disciplinuy process. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient Case Dlsp01ltion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed one-wcrlring-day suapenaions on each officer. Tbe OIG concurred. Following the Sloelly hearings, tbe hiring authority enteted into a settlement agreement with one officer agreeing to remove the disciplinary action ftom the officer's official personnel file after two )'Qill. Tbe OIG did not concur because there were no changed cireumstances to warnnt a modification. However, the settlement agreement did not merit a higher level ofr eview because the penalty wu within departmental guidelines. Tbe second officer filed an appeal with the State PCISOnnel Board. Prior to the bearing, the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a letter of instruction. The OIG did not ooncur because there were no chansed circumatances, the misconduct wammted adwlliC and not correctiw action, and the modification created unjustified disparate penalties fur the twc office111. However, the department did not notify or consult with the OIG prior to entering into the settlement. Disciplinary Ane11ment Tbe department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely oonduct the disciplinuy determinations, modified the penalties without sufficient justification, and did not adequately consult with the OIG. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Insufficient Anessment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conmlt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHcable) regarding dlxlpllnary detumlnatiou prior to making a flnal decUlOD? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority em January 11, 201 7. Howev...; tlr4 hiring authority did not corrsult with tlr4 OIG regarding the disciplinary detominatio113 1111til January 31, 2017, 20 days thereafter. o H then wu a ~eUiemeut agreement, wu the HU!ement cODmtent with the DOM facton? Th4 hiring authority did not identify tmy new evidence, flaws, or riskJ justifYing tlr4 penalty modification. o H then wu a ~eUiemeut agreement, did the Httlement agnemeut lneiDde the key clu-reqntred by DOM? Th4 seltU..ent agreement did not inclutk a waiV<!r oft he ojjicer's rights and a complelte rekase oft lr4 departmelll's liability. o Did the HA c01111llt with the OIG ud department attomey (If appHcable) before modify!Dg the penalty or agreeing to a 1etllemeut? Th4 hiring authority did not corrsult with tlr4 OIG before entering inw a seltU..ent agreement with oM of the ofsfe ers. o H the peDalty wu -dlfled by departmeut actlnD or a HU!ement agreement, did OIG CODCDr with the modlfleatiou? Th4 OIG did not coiiCUr with tlr4 decision w modify the penalties because the department did not identify tmy new evidence, flaws, or risla justifying tlr4 modifications. o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatln111 oflker cooperate with aDd provide coutlnDal real-time CODnltatiOD with the OIG throughout the dlxlpllnary phue? Th4 empwyu relations offscer failed w corrsult with tlr4 OIG before entering inw a seltU..ent agreement with oM of the offscers. o Did the HA cooperate with aDd provide CODtlnul real-tm. COIIIIlltatiou with the OIG throllghOilt the dbclpllnary phue? Th4 hiring authority failed w c0113ult with tlr4 OIG bqo1fl entering inw a settlemmt agreement with one oft lr4 officers. o Wu the disciplinary phue oonducted with du dUigence by the departmeut? Th4 delay is addresaed in a p..Wr question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 145 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-11-15 17-0000109-IR 1. Neglect ofDuty 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Suspension Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On November 15, 2016, a lieutenant allegedly failed to notifY a capWn that a State van containing weapons and ammunition had been left unlocked and unattended in a public uea near a courthouse. Pre-dlsclpllnary Anes1ment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the pre-diaciplirully proceaa because the Office of Internal Affilin refilsed to add an allegation supported by the evidence. The employee "''evant relations officer did not enter dates in the case management system, and the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findinp conf~ce. Subttantlve Ratln1 Sufticient Anestment Questions o Did the Offiee of lutem al Afl"aln make m appropriate illilial. determillatiou regudillg the cue? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nwrnal Affairs lY{used to add an allegatioll for failure to report based on the lieulellallt failing to t• appropriate a~~d timely actioll baud 011 his lrnowledge oft he misconduct. o Wlthill 11 ealeDdar day1, did the dep.n-t attorney or employee relatloiQI oflleer eorreetly a~ea the deadliDe for tal<illg dbelpllnary aetloD aDd make m eutry IIIlo the cue mmagemeut ~Y~tem cooflrmiDg the date of the reported illcldeut, the date of dbeovery, the deadliDe for tal<illg dbelpllnary aetloD, md my eueptillo1lo the deadlille lrnOWD at the time? 1114 empwyee relatiolls offscer did 110t,. tmy elltTy into the case ma~~agement SJI3telfl colljirming relevant dates. o Did the HA tm.ly CODIDlt with the OIG md dep.n-ut attorney (If applleable), reganiillg the nfficleDcy of the illvatigatlou md the illvatlgative IIDdiDp? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI ~~ternal Affairs returned the case to the hiring authority 011 JaiiUary 11, 2017. Howev...; the hiring authority did not coiiSUlt with the OIG and departmellt attorney reganling the suffsciellcy oft he evidellce and the findings Ulltil Ja~~uary 31, 2017, 20 daJ13 thereafter. o Did the departmeut coDduct the pn-dbelpllnary/IDveltlgative phue with due d111gmce? 1114 delay is addressed in a priar questio11. Case Dbposltlon The hiring authority amended the allegation to fail= to "'POrt. sustained the allegation, and imposed a 5 percent aalaly reduction fur six months. The OIG COIIC\Lmld After the Sk4lly hearing, the hiring authority entered into a settlement a!"'ement modifying the saluy ~uetion to a th=-womng-day suspension. The OIG did not concur because the department did not identify any change in cin:umstances justifying the reduction. However, the OIG did not seek a higher level of" 'view because the modified penalty was within the appropriate range for the misconduct. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the disciplinuy process because the hiring authority modified the penalty without a change of cin:umstances and did not timely conduct the disciplinuy findings confc=ce. Pnleedunl Ratln1 Subttantlve Ratln1 illallfficient Sufticient Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly CODIDlt with the OIG md the departmeut atloruey (If applicable) regudillg dbelpllnary determillatioDI prior to makillg a filial decbloo? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI ~~ternal Affairs returned the case to the hiring authority 011 JaiiUary 11, 2017. Howev...; the hiring authority did not coiiSUlt with the OIG and departmellt attorney reganling the disciplinary detentJinatiolls Ulltil Ja~~UIJry 31, 2017, 20 daJ13 thereafter. o H there wu a .ettlemeut agreemeut, wu the lettlcmeut coolbteut with the DOM facton? 1114 depanmmt did 110t idelltify tmy new evidellce,jlaws, or rislajustifying the modifo:atioll and settlemellt. o H the peDalty ....u -dlfled by departmeut actloD or a lettlcmeut agre-eut. did OIG coocur with the modlfkatiou? 1114 OIG did not coiiCUr with the decisioll to modify the penalty because the departmellt did llot identify allY new evidence, flaws, or risla justifying the modijicati011. o Wu the dilclplillary phue cooducted with due d111gmce by the departmeut? 1114 delay is addressed in a priar questio11. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 146 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegations Ftndlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2017~14t 17-0000063-IR 1. Contraband L Suatained Letter of Reprimand Letter ofReprimand Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On Jamuuy 4, 2017, an officer allesedlyp018eaaed a can ofbeer in hia backpack while attempting to enter the inatitution. Pre-disciplinary Anettment The department did not comply with procedures governing the prc-diacipl.in81y proceaa because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the investigative findings conference, and the employee relations officer did not make relevant entries in the case IDIIIUIJC'DICnt system. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insuftk:ient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Within 11 caleDdar day1, did the dep.rtmnt attorney or employee relatlou offlar cornctly --the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actioD and make an entry iDlo the cue management I!YIIem eonflnniDg the date of the reporiM IDeldent, the date of dlxovery, the deadline for tUIDg dlxlpliDary actilm, and any esceptlon11D the deadl!De lmcnm at the time? Th4 employee relatkms offsctJr did not make 1111)1 entry into the case management system conjirmillg t~Jlevant dates. o Did the HA timely COIUIDlt with the OIG and dep.rtmnt attorney (If applleable), regardiDg the nffieleney of the lovatigatlon and the lovatlgatl.ve flodlop? Th4 Office ofI nternal Affairs returned the case w the hiring authority em January 18, 2017. However, the hiring authority did not ccmsult with the OIG t~Jgrurling the sufficiency oft he evidence and the. findings tmtil Man:h 22, 2017, 63 days tlrenfajter. o Did the dep..n.nt cond11et the pre-dlxlpliDary/lnveltigatlve phue with dDe diligence? Th4 delay is addre3s«< in a p..Wr question. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation and issued a letter of reprimand. The OIG cooouned. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Bosrd. Disciplinary Anessment Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diBciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating &Lfficicnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 147 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2017-«Z-m 17-(1022168-IR LDiahoneaty 1. Sustained Diami!aal Diami!aal 2. Intoxication 2. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On February 7, 2017, outside law enforcement arrested a SC!JCant after he allegedly drove a pe1110nal vehicle into a pole while under the influence ofa lcohol. The aCIJCanl was also allegedly dishonest to outside law enfoltlement. Pre-disciplinary Anemnent The department did not comply with procedures soveming the pre-disciplinuy process becaw~e the hiring authority did not conduct the inveatiptive findings conference in a timely manner. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conmlt with the OIG and dep.rtmeDt attorney (If applleable), regarding the nfficleDey of the invatlgatlnn and the invatlgatlve flndlnp? 1114 Of!ic4 oflnWrnal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority em March 22, 2017. However, tlr4 hiring authority did 1101 cONJult with the OIG and department attorney regarding tlr4 sufficiency of the evidence Qlld tlr4 inV«!!tigativefmdings until June 2, 2017, 72 days thereafter. o Did the departmeut coDduct the pn-dbclpllnuy/IDveltlgatlve phue with due dlllgmee? 1114 tklay is address«/ in a prior question. Case Dbposldon The hiriDg authority sustained the alleptiona and diami!aed the SC!JCant. The OIG concum:d However, the sCIJCanl retired befure the disciplinary action took effi:ct. The hiriDg authority placed a letter in the SC!JCant'S official personnel file indicating he retired pending diBciplinary action. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures soveming the diaciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not conduct the diBciplinaly fiDdiDp conference in a timely lllllllDer, and the employee relations officer did not properly complete a furm. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anessment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conmlt with the OIG and the departmeut attDruey (If appHcable) regarding dlxlpllnuy detHmlnatlnu prior to making a final dect.IOD? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority em March 22, 2017. However, tlr4 hiring authority did 1101 cONJult with the OIG and department attorney regarding tlr4 disciplinaty determinatiON! until June 2, 2017, 72 days thereoftu. o Wu the CDCR Form 483 docDmeuting the peDalty pnperly completed? 1114 empwyu relations off~CU did not document the penalty determination in thef orm. o Wu the dbclpllnary phue CODdliCted with due dlllgmee by the departmeut? 1114 tklay is address«/ in a prior question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 148 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA AppendixB 65 Disciplinary Phase Cases Central Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-07-08 14-0002449-IR 1. Imaubotdination 1. SUB!aimed S&laly Reduction NoCbange 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained 3. Diabonesty 3. Not Suataimxl Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident SuJDJDary On July 8, 2014, an officer was allegecDy dishoneat wllen he claimed a pre-scheduled medical appointment prevented him from wmking an involuntuy overtime shift. The officer also allegedly failed to provide a phyBician's note for the appointment and was discourteous to as~ after the SC~Jeanl otdeted the officer to provide the phyBician's note. Case Disp01ition The hiring authority sustained allegations the officer was insubordinate and discourteous for fililing to provide a phyBician's note, but not that the officer was disbonest, and imposed a 10 percent s&laly ~eduction fur fuur months. The OIG concurted. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnd Board Following a hearing, the State Pen10nne1 Boanl upheld the penalty. The officer filed a petition for rehearing with the State Pei'IIOillld Board The State Personnel Boanl denied the petition. Disciplinary Ane11ment The department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinaly process becsuae the biring authority delayed conducting the disciplinary :findinga conference, and the department attorney did not adequately cooperate with the OIG. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Did the HA tm.Iy conmlt with the OIG uut the departmeut attorney (If appHcable) regardlllg dlxlpliDary detumiDatiou prior to maldllg a filial dect.IOD? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs compkMd its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority on FebTuary 5, 2015. However; the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and depaTtment attorney reganling the disciplinary determinations until March 9, 2015, 32 days thereafter. o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatiou oflker cooperate with uut provide coutiDDal real-time connltatiOD with the OIG throughout the dlxlpliDary phue? Th4 department att0111ey fail«/ w respand w several OIG inquirie3 reganling whetlw the officer fil«J a petitimlfor writ of mandate. o Wu the dilclpiiDary phue conducted with du dntgeuce by the departmeut? Th4 delay is addressed in a prior question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 149 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2014-09-12 14-0002820-IR 1. Disho~~C~~ty 1. Sustained Diami!aal Dismissal 2. Failure to Report Use ofForoe 2. Sustained 3. Disho~~C~~ty 3. Not Sustained 4. Failure to Report Use ofForoe 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On September 12, 2014, a lieutenant and three officers allegedly ruled to report using and witiiCIIaing foroe after dra&ging and pulling a handcuffi:d inmate down a hallway. Tbnle SCIJtlanls, :five other officers, and a llUISe allegedly fililed to report witnessing the use offultlC. The lieutenant and one oft he SCIJtlanls were allegedly disho~~C~~t wben reporting no fOitlC was used. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant and dismiaaed him. Tbe OIG oollCUI!ed. Tbe lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Tbe State Personnel Boud dismiaaed the appeal wben be fililed to appear fur the pn>-hearing settlement oonfbrence. The lieutenant filed a petition fur writ ofm andate with Superior Court, which dismi!aed the petition for fililure to appear. Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation apinst one se!Jeant fur fililure to report use offultlC, but not dishonesty, and imposed a 10 peltlCnt aaluy n:duction for 13 months. Tbe OIG concurred. After the Skelly hearing, the department enten:d into a settlement agreement with the seiJeant n:ducing the penalty to a 10 pe=nt aaluy "'duction for six months. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higber level of review because the discipline remained within departmental pdeliiiCII. The hiring authority sustained allegations against three officem fur fililing to document their own and others' uses offoroe and imposed om>-worlring-&y suspensions against each. Tbe OIG concumd Tbe officers did not file appeals with the State Personnel Board. Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against two otber oflicem fur lililing to document the use offu= they witnessed and imposed I etten of"'¢mand on each, and the OIG ooncumd Tbe officers did not :file appeals with the State Personnel Board. Tbe hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the second and third se!JCanls, three officers, and the nunc, and the OIG ooncumd Disciplinary Aneument Tbe department did not comply with procedures soveming the disciplinaly process because the hiring authority did not accuntely document the penalty determination and entered into a settlement &i"'ement that did not oomply with policy, and the department attorney did not ptqla"' the disciplinary action in complianee with policy. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient Anessment Questions o Wu tile <DCR Form .C03 documenting the peully properly completed? Th4form documenting disciplinaty determinations did not idelltify mitigatillgfactoTS.for two ofth4 off~CUs. o Wu tile draft dbclpllnary action provided to the OIG for review ~proprlately drafted u deKribed In the DOM? Th4 draft disciplinary actions did not advise th4lieute11a114 sergea114 and offkeTS oft heir right to ~pond wan Ulli11110lved manager. o Wu tile dbdpllnary action lel"ved on the 111bject (1) ~proprlately dl"llfled u dacribed In the DOM? Th4jillal disciplinary actions did not advise th4lieu1e11a114 serget~~~4 and offke73 oft heir right to ~pond wan Ulli11110lved manager. o H there wu a ICU!e-nt agreement, wu tile ICttlcment eonlbtent witll tile DOM facton? Th4 agrumem w modifY th4 sergeant's penalty was nat consistent with policy bt!IClluse the hirillg authority did not identify any new evidence,jlllws, or rise w support th4 modifscotion. o H the penalty wu -dlfled by dep..._nt action or a ICttlcment agreement, dtd OIG eonenr witll the modlfkatlon? Th4 OIG did not coiiCUr with th4 settlementf or th4 sergeant bt!IClluse th4 hirillg authority did not idelltify any new evidence,jlllws, or risla to support th4 modijicotion. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 150 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number AUegations Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-00~ 15~000829-IR 1. Neglect ofD uty 1. Suataimed Demotion Demotion 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Suataimed 3. Disbonesty 3. Not Suataincd Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On Much 4, 2015, a lieutenant allegedly raised his voice and used profimity toward a captain, was allegecDy dishoneat when he documented his work boun, and delayed completing hia work to obtain overtime. Case Disposition The hiring authority suataincd allegations the lieutenant was diBoourteoua and improperly oompleted his timeaheet, but not the remaining allegations, and demoted the lieutenant to officer. The OIG did not ooncur with the dcciBion to not sustain a diBhonesty allegation or the penalty but did not seek a higher level ofr eview due to confficting evidence. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State PeJSonnel Boanl. Following a hearing, the State Pen10nnel Boanl upheld the demotion. Disciplinary Anemaent The department's handling of the diBciplinsly process was substantively insufficient because the department attorney provided poor legal advice and p!qlanld a diBciplinary action that did not comply with policy, and the hiring authority did not sustain a disboneaty allegation that was warranted by the ~lied timesheet. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Insufficient I Anestment Questions o Did the departmeat attorney pmvlde -tJpmprlate legal coDSDltatioD to the HA reganiillg dbclpliDuy detnmillatlou? 1114 tkpartment attorney provid«lp oor advia whm rt!ICOmmending sustaining neglect of duty inst«ld of dishoM3ty and a tkmotion inst«ld of dismissal. o Did the HA who partldpated ill the dbdpliDary coafereuc:e ldcet the ~mprlate Employee DbelpliDuy Matrix charge• aud CUICI for dbdpliDe? 1114 hiring authority selected a neglect ofd uty cJrarge instead ofd ishonesty. o Did the HA who partldpated ill the dbdpliDary coafereuc:e ldcet the ~mprlate peual.ty? Based on the allegation sustained, a demotion was the appropriat4 penalty, but the hiring authority should have sustained a dishonesty allegation, which would have potentially warrrmted a different penalty. o Wu the draft dlxlpliDuy action pmvlded 1o the OIG for review -tJpmprlately drafted u dexribed ill the DOM? 1114 draft disciplinary action did not advise the lieule1lant ofh is right ta respond ta an u11in110lved manager. o Wu the dbdpliDary KtioD Nrved OD the IDbjeet (1) -tJpmprlately dnfted u dacribed ill the DOM? 1114./illal disciplinary action did not advise the lieutenant ofh is right ta respond ta an u11in110lved manager. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 151 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~3-27 15-0001846-IR 1. Unreuonable Use ofForce 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Letter of Reprimand 2. Neglect of Duly 2. Sustained 3.Diahoneaty 3. Not Sustained 4. Unreuonable Use ofForce 4. Not Sustained 5. Failure to Report Use ofForce 5. Not Sustained 6. Neglect of Duly 6. Not Sustained 7. Neglect ofDuly 7. No Fillding Case Type: Administmive Inveatigation Incident Summary On Man:h 27, 2015, a lieutenant allegedly fitiled to properlyprqJIIle serJeanls and oflioers for a cell extraction and document the force they used. Two serJeanls allegedly cbagged two inmates from a cell by their anldea, shirts, and handcuffs, fitiled to stop the use ofunneoessuy force by offioers, and fitiled to report the use ofunneoessuy force. Six officers allegedly dragged, lifted, and attempted to cany the inmates by their resllaincd arms and legs. Two oft he officers were allegedly dishonest in reporting the force used, and three oft he oflioers allegedly fitiled to report the use of force. Two other offioers allegedly fililed to fully recotd the cell extraction, and an usociate walden allegedly fililed to intervene and fitiled to report the use of force. Case Disposition The hiring authority suatsined the allegation the lieutenant fitiled to properly supervise preparation for the cell extraction, but not the remaining allegation, and imposed a 5 percent aaluy redlllllion for 12 months. The hiring authority sustsined allegations the two serJeanls used unreasonable force and fitiled to stop the offioers' unreuonable force, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed 5 percent saluy redlllllions for 12 months on each. The hiring authority sustained an allegation that one oflioer used unreasonable force and imposed a letter of reprimsnd. The hiring authority sustsined allegations that two other oflioers used unreasonable force, but not dishonesty, and imposed 5 percent salary reductions for six months on each. The hiring authority sustained two allegations that two additional oflioers used unreasonable force, but not that they fitiled to properly document the use off orce, and imposed 5 percent aaluy reductions for six montha on each. The hiring authority suatsined allegations that two officers failed to properly record the oell extraction and imposed 5 percent aaluy reductions for three months on each. The hiring authority found insufficient evidenoe to sustain the allegations against the associate walden and the remaining officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Following the diseiplinuy findinga ronfcn:noe, the department attorney did not agree with the hiring authority's finding that the two serJeanls and five offioers used unreasonable force and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. At the higher level ofr eview, the hiring authority's supervisor determined the two Se!JC'anls and five offioers did not use unreasonable force but found the two seiJCU!Is did not wear the appropriate equipment during the oell extractions, and modified the penally against the serJeanls to letters of reprimand. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higlter level ofr eview due to the impending deadline to impose discipline. The lieutenant, two serJeanls, and two offioers filed appeals with the State Personnel Boanl. Prior to their hearings, the department entered into settlement agreements with each due to the poorly drafted diaciplinuy actions. The department reduoed the penally against the lieutenant to a letter of reprimand, the penalties against the two oflioers to letters of instruction, and dismissed the diaciplinuy actions against the seiJC'anls. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higlter level ofr eview due to the flaws in the diaciplinuy actions. Disciplinary Anemaent The department did not comply with policiea and procedures governing the diaciplinuy proceas because the department attorney drafted legally insufficient diaciplinuy actions resulting in unneoesaary diaciplinuy modifications, prepared insufficient prc>-hearing settlement ronfcn:noe ststements, and did not adequately cooperate with the OIG. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient lnJufl'icient Anestment Questions o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatlou of&er provide the OIG with a copy of the draft dbclplillary actioD &Dd couDlt with the OIG? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 provide the OIG with draft disciplinary actions for moie11t o Wu the dbclpliDary actiou ICrved OD the 111bject (1) appropriately drafted u dacribed ID the DOM? 1114 disciplinary actions served on the two serget111ts W8d irrelewmt policies, and the discipunary actions served 011 the lieutellant and two ojJicers lacked sufficient specificity. 171e disciplinary actio113 served 011 the lieutenanl, sergeants, and off1CU3 also failed to advise them of the right to 7t13pond to an uninvolved manager. o Did the departmeut file a writkll pre-heariDg 1ettiemeut confereuce ltatement 'lrith the SPB cootaiDIDg all req111red IDformatlou IDciDdiDg. bllt DOt llmlted lo, a 1........ary of ltipDlated facti, time atfmafe, Dumber ofwftne-1 'lrith a brief ltatemeutof apected leltlmooy, u.t of dOCDmeDtary evfdeuce, &Dd ltatemeut ofligDiflcant e\'idutiary fiiiDa? 1114 pre-h(!J(ITing settkment conference stotements did not identifY inmate witnesst!3, provide a summary of expert witne3s testimony, or list all relevant documents. o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatlou of&er cooperate with &Dd provide coutiDD&i rul-time coolllitatioo with the OIG thro11gho11t the dbclplillary phue? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 provide the OIG with draft letters ofi ntent or disciplinary actio113 for m1liew and neglected to 7t13pond to the OIG's request to discuss insujJkiellt pre hearing settlement COIIference stotements. Also, the tkpartment ottomeyf ailed to inform the OIG of hearing date and time changes, caJUing the OIG tm~~ecessary travel and a lllte appeara11C8. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 152 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~7~1 15~002285-IR 1. Discriminalion/Haruament L Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. Discriminalion/Haruament 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Suaunary Between Iuly 1, 2015, and September 21, 2015, an officer allegedly repealedly made inappropriate sexual comments to and illappropriately tou.cbed a certified IIUISing u.sistant. Between September 1, 2015, and September21, 2015, the officer allegedly behaved in the same mannertowanlasecondcertifiedllllningasaiatanl Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority suatained the allegations involving one of the certified llllning assistants, but not the second certified IIUISing assistant, and imposed a 26-working-day suspension. Tbe OIG concwred. Tbe officer filed an appeal with the State Penonnd Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board proceedings, the department entered into a aeUlement agreement with the officer apeing to remove the disciplinary action from the officer's official personnel file after six months. Tbe OIG did not concur. However, the seUlement tenns did not merit a higber level ofnmewbecauae the length of the suspension remained uncbanged and the disciplinary action could still be used forprosressive discipline. DbcipUnary Anetsment Tbe department did not comply with procedures soverning the disciplinary process becauae the hiring authority entered into a settlement apement that was not consistent with policy, and the department attorney was not fUlly prepared at the P"'-bearing settlement conference and did not adequately coopetate with the OIG. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating IDaufficient Sufficient I Anet1ment Questions o Did the dep.n-nt'1 adwca• who appeared at the pre-bearing IICttlcment conferenee have ftill famllluity with the faetl and biiiCIIn the ca~e? Th4 tkpartment attomey Wll3 1101 atkqualely prepand to respo11d to the administrative law judge's quulioiiS reganling a witness's atlticipatal testimony. a H there wu aiCUie-nt agreement, wu the IICttlcment eonlbtent with the DOM faeton? Th4 hiring authority did not identify any new evidena,jlaws, or risfCJ to support the modifiCation. a H the penalty wu -dlfled by dep.n-nt aetlon or aiiCttlcment acre-ent, dtd OIG conenr with the modlfkatlnn? Th4 OIG did not concur with the modijiblp enalty because the hiring authority did not identify any new evidence, flaws, or risfCJ to support the modifiCation. o Did the dep.n-nt attorney or employee relatloDI offleer cooper* with and provide eontlnDal real-time conlllltation with the OIG thro11gho11t the dbclpllnary pha~e? Th4 tkpartment attomey did 1101 provide the OIG with a draft of the settlement agreement for m1liew. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 153 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-{18-{18 15-{1002382-IR l. Neglect of Duly l. Suataimed Saluy Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Suataincd 3. Miauae of State Equipment or Property 3. Not Suataincd Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident SullliUry On Auauat 8, 2015, an officer allesedly fitiled to check fur an unobstnwted view into an inmate's cell, confinn the inmate was alive, and fillsely reported he observed the inmate alive when the inmate was actually ~ive with a sheet around bis nook. A seoond officer allegedly fitiled to conduct required security checks and fillsified a record of security cheeb. A licensed psycbiatric tecllnician and tbird officer allesedly falaified their reports repnling their response to the inmate's cell. A nllllle allegedly fililed to talre required equipment to the scene and fillaified bia report. On January 27,2016, a fuurth officer was allegedly dishonest during bis interview with the Office of Internal AffiUrs. Case Disposition The biring authority suataincd allegations against two officers fur fitiling to conduct adequate cell cheeb. The biring authority imposed a 10 percent salary n:dudion fur six months against one officer and a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months against the second officer becauae his fitilure to conduct cell checks was closer in time to the inmate's death. After the first officets Slrielly hearing, the hiring authority discovered the lint officer did not have a duty to conduct cell checks. Due to tbis information, the biring authority withdrew tbis officets disciplinary action. The biring aulhorities fuund insufficient evidence to suatain the remaining allegations apinst the officers, nurse, and psycbiatric teclmician. The OIG concurred with the biring authorities' determinations. The second officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board but withdrew the appeal. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures soveming the disciplinary process because the department attorney did not prepare diacipliruuy actions in compliance with policy. The department delayed conducting the disciplinary findings confbrence. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Insufficient Suflklient A11es1ment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly conmlt with the OIG uut the department attorney (If appHcable) regardlllg dlxlpllury detumlllatlou prior to maldllg a filial dect.IOD? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkt4d its illwsligation and "'!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authorities on July 11, 1016. However, the hiring authorityf or the officers did not consult with the OIG and the department attorney reganlillg the disciplinary determinations until July 17, 1016, 15 daJ13 thentafter. o Wu the draft dUclpliDary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted u deiCribed Ill the DOM? Tlr4 draft disciplillary action cit4d inappropriote legal authority and did not advise the oJjicers of the right to respond to a manager who was not illvoiV«< in the illwsligation. o Wu the dbdpllllary u:tllln ICI'ved on the 111bjeet (1) appropriately dnfted u dacribed Ill the DOM? Tlr4jillal disciplillary action cited inappropriate legal authority and did not advise the oJjicers of the right to respond to a manager who was not illvoiV«< ill the illwsligation. o Wu the dbdpllllary phue conducted with dae dlllgenee by the department? Tlr4 delay is addresa«< ill a p..Wr quution. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 154 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-11-11 15-0002924-IR 1. Unreuonable Use ofForce 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Letter of Reprimand 2. Neglect of Duly 2. Sustained 3. Unreuonable Use ofForce 3. Not Sustained 4. Failure to Report Use ofForce 4. Not Sustained 5. Neglect of Duly 5. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Summary On November 11, 2015, an oflioer allesedJy fililed to report pbbing an imnate's wrist Uld forcing the inmate to the gn;nuui A lieutenant allegedly ordered oflioers to use scissors to "'move a second imnate's clothing when no imminent ~at wu pn:sent, a second officer allegedly "'trieved the scissors and leg "'straints, a sergeant allegedly cut the second imnate's shirt and "'moved it, and a thin! and fuurth oflioer allesedJy ~W~oved the second imnate's pants Uld applied leg ~traints. Case Dbposldon The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the lieutenant and sergeant Uld issued a 10 pen1ent salary n:duction fur six months to the lieutenant and a letter of reprimand to the sergeant. The OIG concurred except for the hiring authority's determination reptding the sergeant's penally. The OIG did not seek a higher lewl of review because the penalty wu within departmentsl guidelines. The hiring authority fOund insufficient evidenoe to sustain the allegations against the oflioers, Uld the OIG coneumd. FoUowing a Sloelly hearing, the hiring authority withdR:w the letter of" 'Primand issued to the sergeant and issued a letter ofi nstruction. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to a hearing, the hiring authority en~d into a settlement ~ent with the lieutenant reducing the penally to a letterof"'Primand. The OIG did not COIICUf with either deciBion but did not seek a higher level ofr eview due to conflicting evidence. DbcipUnary Anessment The department did not comply with policiea and procedures governing the disciplinaryproceas because the hiring authority did not select the appropriate penalty, neglected to timely serve the disciplill&IY action, Uld reduced the penaltiea without sufficient justification. Also, the department attorney did not adequately coopel8le with the OIG. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Insufficient lnJufficient Anestment Questions o Did the HA who partidpmd In the dilclpllnuy confereDCe Hlect the appropriate penalty? Th4 hiring authority issued a let/6 ofn fprimQIId to th6 sergeant wllm a salary t~Jductiml was more oppropria/4. o H there wu a ~eUie-nt agreement, wu the ldtlcment conlbtent with the DOM futon? Th4 selttlemmt agrummtfor the lieutenant was 110t COIISistent with policy because the hiring authority did tlot identify QIIY MW evidmce,jlaws, or rislr3 to justify the t~Jductiml. o H the penalty wu -dlfled by departn.nt action or a ldtlcment acre-ent, did OIG concnr with the modlfkatlon? Th4 OIG did tJot coiiCUr with th6 pmalty reductio11S because the hiritJg authority did 110t idmtify allY MW evidme4, flaws, or risll3 to support the t~Jductimls. o Did the departn.nt attorney or employee relatlou of&er cooperate with and provide contlnnal real-time conn.ltation with the OIG throughout the dbclpllnary pha~e? Th4 lkpartment attorney did tJot provide drafts oft h6 li4utenant's revised disciplinary action Qlld th6 settlement agreement to the OIG for rel/iflll( o Wu the dildpllnuy phue conducted with due dUigence by the depan-nt? Th4 lkpartment did tJot serve the disciplinary acttotls withi/130 days ofth« deciskm to take disciplifiQF)I actiotl. 171e hiritJg authority conducted the disciplifiQF)I findings eot~fermce on October 13, 2016. Howewr, th6 deportmmtdid 110t serve th6 disciplinary acti011S until December 5 Qlld 6, 2016, 53 OtJd 54 days later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 155 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-01~8 16-0000764-IR 1. Disoourteoua Treatment 1. SusWned Suspenaion Suspenaion 2. Disbonesty 2. UnfOunded Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Januuy 8, 2016, a captain allegedly pulled a IKlarfthat an officer wu wearing around the neck. On January 9, 2016, the officer, a second officer, and a serJC&Ill were allegedly diBhonest when repcrting the incident. Case Dliposltion The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the captain and detennined a 6~wmking«y suspension wu the appropriate penalty. The OIG concum:d. However, the captain resigned befure diaciplill&IY action oould be imposed The hiring authority placed a letter in the captain's officW pelliOnnel file indicating he resigned pending disciplinary action. The hiring authority detennined the investigation of the sergeant and two officetll conclusively proved the misoonduct did not OIXllll". The OIG concum:d. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the diacipl.inaly process because the department attorney provided poor legal advice to the hiring authority. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anestment Questions o Did the departmeut attorney pmvlde -tJpmprlate legal coDSDltatioD to the HA regardillg dbclpliDuy determillallou? 1114 tkpartment a#0111ey fail«J w advise the hiring authority the captain was previously disciplill«< and the prior discipline would impact the penalty ill this Cll3e. 1114 tkpaTtment attorney initially advised the hiring authority the captain should receive a letter of reprimand and then recommended a low level salary reductkm when a suspension was more approprklte. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 201641-21 16-0001705-IR 1. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. SusWned Salary Reduction Salary Reduction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SuJDJDary On Apri121, 2016, two officetll allegedly solicited prostitution fiom an undercover outside law enforcement officer. Case Dliposltion The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for 24 months against each officer. Both officen1 filed appeals with the State PeraonDel Board Both oflicem later withdrew their appeals. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures sovcrning the diacipl.inaly process because the hiring authority did not notify the department attorney and the OIG of the Skelly hearings. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufticient Anes1ment Questions o H there wu a Skelly hearillg, wu It cODducted punD&Dt to DOM? 1114/lirmg authority did notp rovitk the tkpaTtment attorney or the OIG with notice of the Skelly heariflg. o Did the HA cooperate with and pmvlde CODtiDilal. real-&. consllltatlou with the OIG lhmllghOilt the dbclpliDary phue? 1114/lirillg authority did not advise the tkpartment a#orney and the OIG oft he dat4 and times of the Skelly hearings for both ofsfe ers. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 156 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Inddent Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-{18-11 16-0001957-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismiaaal Diamissal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On Auaust 11, 2016, an oflioer wu allegedly dishonest with outside law enfuroement when lhlsely reporting he was the victim of a hit-ud-run accident. Case DIIIJOIIdon The hiring authority sustained the allegation and dismissed the oflioer. The OIG ooncum:d. The officer filed an appeal with the State Penlonnel Board. Prior to the State Penonnel Board proceedings, the department entered into a aeUiement agreement with the oflioer wherein the oflioer resigned in lieu ofd iamissal and agreed to never seek employment with the department in the future. The OIG conciiiiCd because the agreement ensured the oflioer would no longer worl< fur the department. Dbclplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures governing the discipl.inaly process because the biring authority did not conduct a timely discipl.inaly findings conference, the department attomey did not prepare an adequate discipl.inaly action, and the department did not appropriately conduct the Skelly hearing. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating IDauflicient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA timely CODBlt with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHeablc) regardiDg dbelpllnary detenniDatlo11.1 prior to maldDg a filial deeblOD? Tlr4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority on September 18, 1016. Ho'Y~Wer, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and the department attorney reganling the disciplinary detmrtinattom Ulltil October 11, 1016, 13 days thereafter. o Wu the draft dlxlpliDuy action provided 1o the OIG for review approprlaldy drafted u dexribed Ill the DOM? Tlr4 draft disciplinary did not cite approprklte legal authorityf or protecting con:fulelltial ptJtJce offJCet" information and did Mt inform the officer he had a right to respond to a manager not inliOived in the inW!3tigation. • Wu the dbdpllnary action ICI"Ved on the 111bjeet (1) approprlaldy dnfted u dacrlbed Ill the DOM? Tlr4 disciplinary action served on the officer did Mt cite appropri4U legal authority for proUctingpersonalp eace o.f!ker information and did 11ot inform the o.f!ker he had a right to respond to a manager not inliOived ill the inW!3tigation. o H there wu a Skelly hearlnr. wu It eondliCted plll"llll&llt 1o DOM? Tlr4 employee relatialls offJCet" conducted the Skelly hearillg, substollttolly diminishi11g the Skelly offJCet"'s role. • Wu the dbdpliDuy phue eODdliCted with dDe diligence by the department? Tlr4 delay is addressed in a prl4r questio11. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 157 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~8-18 16-0001995-IR L Dishonesty L Suatained Diamiaaal Diamiaaal 2. Criminal Act 2. Suatained 3. Other Failun: ofG ood Behavior 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On Auauat 18, 2016, oulaide law enfurcement diacovcred an officer allesedly intoxicated while aaleep on a sidewalk and arrested him on a wanant fur a prior domestic violence incident. On Auauat 21, 2016, the officer waa allesedly diaboneat to hia hiring authority. Case Dbp01ition The hiring authority sustained allegations the officer waa drunk in public and dishonest to the hiring authority, but not the remaining allegation, and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. HoMwr, the officer fililed to appear fur a pn>-hearing settlement confetWce, and the State Pe110nnel Board dismissed his appeal. DiscipUnary Ane11ment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with the policies and proc~ governing the diaciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufticient I Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegation• Ftndings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-®-17 1~002005-IR 1. Failun: to Report LSustained Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained 3. Other Failun: ofG ood Behavior 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On September 17, 2016, a serJeant waa arrested after he allegedly ydled expletiws at hia wife and threatened her son. Case Dbp01ition The hiring authority sustained the allegation the sergeant waa diacourteoua and added and sustained an allegation the serseant fitiled to tqJOrt his am:st, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction fur six months. The hiring authority fulllld insufficient evidence to sustain the remaining allegation. The OIG concum:d At the Skielly hearing, the serJeant presented evidence showing he tqJOrted hia am:sl Due to this mitigating information, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the serseant reducing the penalty to a 5 penlCnt salary reduction fur three months. The OIG concurred due to the infOrmation learned at the Skelly hearing. Di1cipUnary Aneument The department did not comply with procedures gowrning the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the diaciplinary findings conference or serve the diaciplinary action in accordance with policy. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating IDallfficient Sufficient I Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA tm.ly co....,lt with the OIG and the department attorney {If applicable) regudlng dbclpllnary determlnatlon1 prlnr to maklng a flnal decblOD? Th4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority 011 October 19, 1016. H~ the hiritJg authority did not cOIISUit with the OIG and the departltletlt attomey regardmg the disciplitJary determmatiorrs 1111til November 11, 1016, 34 days thereafter. o Wu the dbdpllnary phue CODdliCted with dDC dlllcence by the depu1ment? One delay is addressed m a prior questio11. hi addili011, the depanmmt did tJOt serve the disciplillary actiotJ withi1130 days of the decUiml to tok4 discipunary actiOII. The hiritJg authority conducted the disciplillaryf mdmgs cotiference 011 November 11, 1016. However, the departltletlt did tJot serve the disciplitJary actiml u11ti1December 18, 1016, 36 days later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 158 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10~ 16-0002078-IR 1. ControUed Substances 1. Suatained Diami!aal Diami!aal Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On October 6, 2016, an officer allesedly tested poaitive fur marijuana. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained the allegation and served the officer with a diami!aal. The OIG concurrcd The officer resigned on the day the disciplinary action took effect. The hiring authority p~ed a letter in the offiOCJ's official pCiliOnnel file indicating the officer resigned Ullder unfavorable circumstances. Dbciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures soverning the disciplinary process because the hiring authority delayed conducting the disciplinary findings conference and did not serve the disciplinary action in accordance with policy. The department attorney did not properly draft the disciplinary action. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauffic:ient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions • Did the HA timely coDBlt with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHeablc) regardiDg dbelpllnary determtnatlo11.1 prior to maldDg a filial deeblOD? Tlr4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority 011 November 16. 1016. Ho'IM'et; the hiring authority did tJot co113Uit with the OIG and the tkpartmmt attorney regatrling the disciplinary detmrtinottom Ulltil13 days thereajW. a Wu the draft dlxlp!IDuy action provided 1o the OIG for review approprlaldy drafted u dexribed Ill the DOM? Tlr4 draft disciplinary actiotJ did tJot advise the offscer ofh er right to respond to atJ Ullinvolwd manager. o Wu the dilclp!IDuy u:tloa Nrved on the 1abjeet (1) approprialdy dnfled u delcribed Ill the DOM? Tlr4 disciplinary action served 011 the officer did not advise the offie4T ofh er right to 1f!3potld to an Ullinvolverl manager. a Wu the dilclp!IDuy phue conducted with dae dutgenee by the department? One delay is addressed in a prior questio11. hi addition, the hiring authority .Ud tJot serve the disciplinary action wilhin 30 days oft he d«isiml to take disciplinary acti011. The hiring authority conducted the di.sciplinary findings conference 011 December 9, 1016. However, the tkpartmeflt did tJot serve the disciplinary action utltil JatJUary 10, 101 7, 41 days kl1er. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 159 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA North Incident Date OIG Calle Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2012-09-01 14-000285~IR 1. Dishonesty l.Suatained Dismilis&l DismiBs&l 2. Battery 2.Suatained 3. Nepct ofD uty 3. Suatained 4. Nepct ofDuty-Diatnction ftom Duty 4. Suatained 5. Dishonesty 5. Not Sualained 6. Sexual Miaconduct 6. Not Sualained 7. Failure to Report 7. Not Sualained 8. Nepect ofD uty 8. Not Sualained 9. Nesiect ofDuty-Diatnction ftom Duty 9. Not Sualained Case Type: Administmive Inveatigation Incident SuDUDary Between September 1, 2012, and March 1, 2013, two SerJCanla and fiw offioen allegedly played toilet paper basketball in an &dministmive segregation unit UJd failed to report the miscondu.ct. One oft he officera allegedly remowd her stab wat UJd pulled up her sbirt to expose her bm, and on a separate occasion, exposed her senit&la to the officera and one oft he SerJCanla. The same serseant and female officer &llesedly had a sexual relationsbip, both on UJd off institutional pounds, and neither reported the relationsbip. In May 2014, the same IICIJeant allegedly grabbed an office technician's buttocks and pt&ls. The female officer wu allegedly dishoneat to the empl~e relations officer on September 23, 2014, and to the Office ofintem&l AfliliiB on June 17, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the same SerJeant was &llesedly dishonest to the Office ofintem&l Aflilira. Case Disposition The hiring authority sualained the allegations against the firat IICIJeant. except that he engased in a sexual relationsbip with the female officer on duty, and diamisaed him. The hiring authority sualained the allegations against the firat officer, except that she exposed her senit&la, engased in a sexual relationsbip with the se!Jeant on duty, and was dishonest to the empl~e relations officer, and dismilised her. The hiring authority sualained allegations that the other four offioen played games while on duty, but not the remaining alleption. The hiring authority iMued letters of instruction to three of the officera and a letter ofr eprimand to the other officer because he failed to take responsibility for his misconduct The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sualain the &lleptions against the second IICIJeanl The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The firat UJd fifth offioen did not file appeala with the State Peraonnel Board. The firat SerJeant filed an appeal. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board upheld all oft he allegations, except two dishonesty alleptions regarding statements the SerJeant made during his Office of Internal Aflilira interview, UJd upheld the dismilis&l. Disciplinary Anemaent The department's handling of the disciplinsly process wu substantiwly insufficient becauae the depsrtmcnt attorney did not present sufficient evidence during the State Peraon&l Board hearing to prove two dishonesty allegations. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Insufficient Anessment Questions • Did the departmeut'1 adwcate pramt the ueeaury available evldeDCe regardlllg the allegatlODI at the heartug? 1114 tkpartment attorney did 1101 pre3ent sujficimt evidence to establish the sergeant k7Nw the offscer remov«< her bra and two other of.liars complained Qlld theniforr;,fail«J to establish the sergeant was dishonest during his interview with the Of.lia oflntemalAffaiT3 regarding those facts. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 160 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2013-{11-{11 16-0001291-IR l. NesJect ofD uty l. Suataimed Suspension Suspension 2. Misuse of State Equipment or Property 2.Suataimed 3. Sexual Misconduct 3. Not Suataincd 4. Diacrimination!Huusment 4. Not Suataincd S. Failure to Report S. Not Suataincd 6. Misuse ofA uthority 6. Not Suataincd 7. Nepect ofD uty 7. Not Suataincd Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary On Jamuuy 1, 2013, a cmrectional administrator allegecDy made unWllnled sexual advances toward a SC!JCanl and sent her inappropriate email measqea fiom a State computer. On August 9, 2014, tbe correctional adminiatl8for allegedly influeii()Cd a diaciplinary decision ap.inat another sefiCU'l to whom tbe first se,.,ant was married and inappropriately shared confidentW information with tbe first SCIJeant reprding the pending diaciplinary action. Also on August 9, 2014, tbe correctional adminiatl8for allegedly engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with the firat SerJeant, a subordinate, and fililed to take appropriate action when tbe first aefiCU'l reported other staff memben~' misconduct On September 13, 2014, tbe correctional adminiatl8for allegedly asked the firat SerJeant not to report that she had previoualy reported misconduct to him. On September 30, 2014, the correctional administrator allegecDy engqed in sexual activity with the first SCIJeant while on grounds. Case Dbposltion Tbe hiring authority suataincd the allegations that tbe correctional adminiatl8for mill used his State compuler to send inappropriate messqes and that he engqed in sexual activity with a subordinate, but not tbe remaining allegations, and imposed a 10-wmking-day suspension. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. The omrectional administrator did not file an appeal with tbe State Pen10nnel Boud. Disciplinary Anemaent Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Suflicient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 161 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2013~-10 14-0001%9-IR 1. Dishooesty 1. Sustained Diamissal Diamissal 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained 3. Neglect of Duty 3. Not Sustained 4. Neglect of Duty 4. No Fillding Case Type: AdminiB1181ive Investiption Incident Summary On June 10, 2013, an Office ofLepl Ml'ainllll8JUI8C'r allesedly withdrew a diacipfuwy action qainstan Office of Correctional Safi:ty parole agent even thouah thm: was sufficient evidence to support the diaciplinary action and allegecDy withdrew the diacipfuwy action without consulting with the hiring authority, his superviaor, or the OIG. He also allegecDy failed to complete a case settlement report and failed to make "'quired entries in the case IIUIJUI8C'ment system. The Office ofLepl Mfainl manager was also allesedly disbonest when he claimed to haw spoken with the hiring authority, outside law enfurcement, and the OIGprior to withdmwing the disciplinary action. On June 11, 2014, the Office ofLepl Mfainl manager allegecDy failed to consult with the OIG prior to entering into a settlement ag=ment involving an officer. The Office ofLepl Ml'ainllll8JUI8C'r also allegecDy failed to complete a case settlement report and make appropriate entries in the case IIUIJUI8C'ment system. On June 20, 2014, the Office ofLepl Mfainl manager allegecDy failed to consult with the OIGpriorto ~W~oving alleptions in a diacipfuwy action involving a parole agent and failed to notifY the OIG oft he State Penonnel Board hearing date and, subsequently, on September 29,2014, the Office ofLepl Ml'ainllll8JUI8C'r allesedly fililed to consult with the OIG prior to entering into a settlement ag=ment and failed to complete a case settlement tq~orl and make "'quired entries in the case management system. On September 25, 2014, the Office ofLepl Aflilira manager allegecDy failed to consult with the OIG prior to amending a diaciplinary action and entering into a settlement &J"'emenl in a case involving a supervising parole agent and failed to complete a case settlement tqJOrt. Case Dbp01ltion The hiring authority sustained all alleptions, except that the Office ofLepl Mfainl manager failed to complete a case settlement tq~orl in the case involving the Office ofC~ctional Safi:typarole agent, and imposed diamissal. The hiring authority errooeously added a neglect ofd uty alleption and, th=f=, made no finding on the alleption. The OIG concum:d with the hiring authority's detenninations. The Office ofLepl Mfainl manager filed an appeal with the State Penonnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Peraonnel Board upheld the diamissal. The Office ofLepl Aflilira manager filed a petition fur rehearing, which the State Peraonnel Board denied. Disciplinary Aneument Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures gowming the diaciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 162 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegationt Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-(11-(11 16-0001262-IR 1. Diahonealy l.Suatained Dismissal Resignation in Lieu ofTennination 2. Failure to Report 2. Suatained 3. Conlrolled Substances 3. Suatained 4. Contraband 4. Suatained 5. Dil!dosure of Confidential Information 5. Suatained 6. Ncpect of Duty 6. Suatained 7. DiiKlOurfeoua T"'alment 7. Suatained 8. Failure to Report 8. Not Suatained 9. Other Failure of Good Behavior 9. Not Suatained Case Type: Administnltive Investigation Incident SuJDJDary Between January 1, 2014, and Deoember 31, 2015, a serJCP!l allesedly operated an outside business without departments! pennisaion, participated in a IXIOtdinaled effurt to prewnt reporting a cowmkets misconclut.lt, and advised the cowmker to be dishonest to a supervisor. On Manlh 16,2014, and January 28,2015, the serJCP!l allesedly advised an officer to be dishonest to supervisors about potential miiKlOnduct. From July 10, 2015, to February 11, 2016, the setgeant allesedJy smugped marijuana, mobile pbones, and cbarJen into the institution, accepted bribes fn:lm wards and their families, and conspWd to P""Vent reporting an officets miiKlOnduct. On September 16,2015, the setgeant allesedly told a group ofwanls that another ward provided inftmnation about contraband being smuggled into the institution, had that ward assaulted by other wards, taunted him fur reporting misconduct, and delayed securing medical attention fur his injuries. On October 28, 2015, the setgeant allesedJy fililed to document finding marijuana on a ward and failed to preserve it as evidence. And, on June 15, 2016, the setgeant was allegedly dishonest during his interview with the Office ofinternsl Affilirs. Case Dbpo~ition Tile hiring authority suatained the allegations, except fur two that M"' improperly worded, and dismissed the setgeSnt. Tile OIG conc~d with the hiring authority's detenninstions. Tile setgesnt filed an appeal with the Stste Penonnel Bosrd. However, pursuant to a seUiemcnt agn:ement, the setgeant resigned in lieu ofd ismissal and agnx:d to never seek employment with the department in the fu~. Tile OIG concurred because the ultimate goal of ensuring the setgeant did not work fur the department was achiewd Dbcipllnary Anetsment Tile department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Suflklient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 163 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-10-28 15~000423-IR l.Dishonealy 1. Suataimed Saluy Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Over-Familiarity 2.Suataimed 3. Nepect of Duty 3. Sustained 4. Miause of Stale Equipment or Properly 4.Suataimed S.Dishonealy S. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident SullliUry On October 28, 2014, two investigative services unit officCD allegedly communicated with an inmate's wiftl via text message and lililed to take action when they knew the inmate lwl a mobile pbone. One of the officetS allesedly thteatened the inmate's wife via text message, planted an inmate-llliiiiU.fiwtured weapon inside the inmate's cell, and fililed to document relinquiBhing custody of the inlnak-11l8111lfi1Ctured weapon be round. An investigative services unit sergeant allesedly fililed to document possession of the inmate-lllllllllfllctu weapon. The second officer allesedly lillsely documented thstan inmate was not involved in illegalldivily. The sergeant, an investigative services unit lieutenant, and a warden allegedly lililed to take l(ltion wben they were aw= that officers were allowing inmates to possess mobile pbonea and communicating with inmates via text message. Case Disposition Tile hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first officer, except that the officer planted a weapon in the inmate's cell, and i!aued a 10 percent salary redudion fur 13 months. Tile hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second officer, except that be 1illaely documented that an inmste was not involved in illegal.,tivily, and issued a 10 percent salary reduction for ibur months. The second officer received a lowerpenslly than the first officer because he lwlleas experience and a minor role. Tile hiring authority sustained the allegations against the sergeant, lieutenant, and W8lden, and i!aued aS percent asluy reduction fur six months against the sergeant and letters of reprimand against the lieutenant and the warden. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's dctenninations. The two officCD and the sergeant filed appeals with the State PC!llonnel Board. At the pro-hearing seUlement conference fur the first officer, the department reached an agreement with the officer reducing the penslly to a 10 percent asluy reduction fur eight months. Tile OIG did not concur but did not seek a hiJIIer level ofr eview because the penally was within the diaeiplinuy matrix fur the sustained misconduct. Prior to bearing, the hiring authority reacbed a settlement agreement with the second officer agreeing to remove the diaeiplinuy action from the officel's official peiSOOnel file upon written request one year after the effi:ctive date. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higher level of review because the monetuy penslly remained the same. Prior to the sergeant's State PCJllonnel Board bearing, the department rel(lhed a seUiement agreement with the sergeant agreeing to remove the disciplinary action from the sergeants official pCDonnel file one year after the effi:ctive date upon written request Tile OIG did not concur but did not seek a hiJIIer level ofr eview because the monetary penslly remained the same. Neither the lieutenant nor the warden filed appeals. Disciplinary Ane11ment Tile department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinuyproceas because the department attorney provided legal advice to the hiring authority that was inconsistent with policy, dnlfted an inadequate seUlement agreement, and did not adequately represent the department during State PCDonnel Boanl proceedings or adequately coopen1te with the OIG. The hiring authority entered into seUiement agreements without sufficient justification. Procedural Rating Subltantiw Rating Inauflieient Inaufficient I Anes1ment Questions • Did the dep.n-nt attnmey provide ~propria. legal COQllltatlon te the HA regarding dbclpllnary demmlnathuq? Th4 tkpartment attomey ntcommmdal the IUut<lllant r«eive a letw ofi llstnlclioll, wllidl is not wit/lin the department's disciplinary gujdeUnes for the allegation sustmnal. • Did the dep.n-nt attnmey provide to the HA and OIG written confirmation of penalty dbcJISifolq? Th4 tkpartment attomey did not provide written co'!finnalioll ofp enalty discussions to the hiring authority and the OIG. o Wu the draft dbc:lpllnuy action provided to the OIG for review ~proprla~y drafiM u dexribed In the DOM? Th4 draft disciplinary action for one oft he offictJI'S itkntified an incorrect penalty, rqerenced illcomJCt post onlers and an incorrect date oft raining reconls, did not describe the possible harm, did not inclutk all relewznt facts, and neglected to contain stdficient daail to inform the offker oft he allegations. • Did the department file a wrl*-pn-hearlng 1eUiement conference lta~ent with the SPB containing all nqnlnd Information lnclndlng. bnt not llml~ to, a1nmmary of ltlpn~d facti, time atlmaW, nnmber oflritne-• with a brleflta~entof ~ected •~ttmony,lbt of docnmentary evidence, and lta~ent of idgnlflcant evidentiary blna? Th4 draft p-e-hearing seltlement corifmmu statementf or one oft he offictJI'S itkntified an incorrectp enalty ofd ismissal instead ofs alary ntduclioll, identified an inOOI'I'eCt illcitknt date, and neglected to include several key wi-s«1. 171e p-e-hearing settlement conference skltementsf or the second offker and the serget111t also failal to inclutk several key witnesses and did not inclutk all relewmt ahibils. • H there wu a~eUiement qreement, wu the Httlement conliltent with the DOM facton? Th4 hiring authority did not identify any new evidence, flaws, or risfCJ to justify the settlements. • H there wu a~eUiement qreement, did the ICttlcment agreement lnciDde the key claniC:II nqtdred by DOM? Th4 settlementagreementfor the sergeant did not inclutk waiver ofbackpoy or all applicable kmguagefor persons over the age off orty. • H the penally wu -dlfled by dep.n-nt action or aiCttlement qreement, did OIG concnr with the modlfleatlon? Th4 hiring authority did not identify any new evidence, flaws, or risfCJ to justify the settlements. • Did the department'• adw~ adeqnmly and appropriately addrealcgallune• prior to and dnrlng the SPB hearing? SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 164 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Th4 tkpartmenl attorney did not oppose a petition OM oft he officeT3 filed rtJqUesting permission to file a lllte appeal. As a result, the Stole PeT3onnel Board accept«< the officer's untimely oppeaL o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatlou of&er cooperate with ud pi'O\'ide coutiDD&l rul-tlme CODn.ltatioo with the OIG throughout the dbclpliDary phue? Th4 tkpartmenl attorney failed to provide the OIG with draft disciplinary actioiiS with sufficient, Ttla!lonable time for m1iew and did notp rovide the OIG with the CliSe settlement repoTt. Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegations Ftndlng1 Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2014-11-01 16-0000761-IR l. Failure to Report l. Suatained DismiJaal Resignalioo in Lieu ofTenninatioo 2. Over-Familiarity 2. Suatained 3. Over-Familiarity 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Administmive IDveatigatioo Incident SuJDJDary In Nov=ber2014 and February 10, 2016, an officer allegedly gave speakers to an inmate. On February 15, 2016, the officer allegedly asked another officer not to report his miscondud. On Ausust 10, 2015, the officer allegedly brougbt food and compact discs into the institutioo for inmates. Case DliiJOiltion The hiring authority suatained allegations that the officer gave spealren to an inmate and uk:ed another officer not to report his misconduct, but not the remaining allegations, and served the officer with a notice of dismiJaal. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State PersonDel Board. Prior to the hearina, the department entered into a settlement agreement wherein the officer ~Qigned in lieu ofd ismissal and ag=d to never seek employment with the department in the f'utlm:. The OIG coocurred becauae the ultimate goal ofe nsurina the officer did not work for the department was achieved. Dbcipllnary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policiea and procedures aovernina the diaciplinsry process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficicllt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 165 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015.m~1 16-0000472-IR l. Neglect of Duly l. Suataimed Saluy Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Misuae of Stale Equipment or Property 2.Suataimed 3. Neglect of Duly 3. Not Suataincd Case Type: Adminialnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary Between Februaty 1, 2015, and Januuy 31, 2016, an oflioer &llesedJy sent illappropriate email messages to a co-worker. On Deoember 25, 2015, tbe oflioer allegedly failed to complete a thorough security cheek, conduct three cell seuches, respond when he observed two inmates fighting, notifY a &CIJC'ant ofo ne oftbe inmate's injuries, properly secure cell doms, and played an unauthorized game on a Stale computer. Case DIIIJOIIdon The hiring authority suataincd the allegations, except that tbe oflioer failed to respond to an inmate fight, and imposed a 10 penx:nt saluy reduction fur 24 montha. The OIG concurred. The oflioer filed an appeal with tbe State Personnel Boud. Prior to the State Personnel Board prooeedinga, tbe department entered into a settlement agreement which permitted early removal oft he diseiplinuy action ftom the oflicets official personnel file. The OIG did not concur with tbe settlement. Howwer, the settlement teiDIII did not merit a higher level of review becauae the diaciplinuy action could still be uaed fur progressive discipline. Disciplinary Anemaent The department did not comply with prooedures governing tbe disciplinuy prooess becauae the hiring authority did not timely conduct tbe diseiplinuy findings ~noe or serve tbe diseiplinuy action in accordanoe with policy. The hiring authority modified the disciplinuy action without sufficient juatification and tbe department attorney did not adequately cooperate with tbe OIG. Plveedural Rating Subltandve Rating Inauflicient Suflicient I Anestment Questions o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHcable) regarding dlxlpllnary detennlnatiou prior to making a flnal decUioo? 1'114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complel4d its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority 011 June 30, 2016. However, the hiring authority did not consult with the OIG and the department attonley reganling the disciplinary detmltinatioNI Ulltil August 10, 201(), 41 days thtJI'tJafter. o Did the department attorney pm\'lde to the HA and OIG written conflnnatloo of penalty dlKIIISlnlll? 1'114 department attorney did nat provide written co'!firmation ofp malty discussioNI. o H there wu axttlement agreement, wu the lettlcment coolbtent wlth the DOM facton? 1'114 department enter«/ inw a seltU..ent agreement without identifying any new evidence, flaws, or ri3lr3. o H the cue lettled, did the department attorney or employee rdatio111 of'&er properly complete the CDC Form 3011? 1'114 department attorney did nat provide the OIG with the case settlemellt report o H the penalty wu -dlfled by department actlnn or alettlcment agreement, did OIG CODcnr wlth the modlfleation? 1'114 OIG did not coiiCUr with the settkment because the hiring outhority did nat identify any new evidence, flaws, or riskJ w support the modification. o Did the department attorney or employee relatlou of'&er cooperate wlth and provide contlnnal real-time CODinltatloo wlth the OIG thronghont the dlxlpllnary pha~e? 1'114 department attorney did nat provide the OIG writtm confirmation ofp enalty discussiom or the case seltU..ent rqJort. o Wu the dbclpllnary phue CODdncted wlth dne dDJcenee by the department? One delay is addressed in a prior question. hi addition, the department did nat serve the disciplinary actio11 within 30 days of the d«Uioll to take discipUIIOIJI action. The hiring authority collducted the disciplinary fllldings conference 011 August 10, 20115. However; the department did 11ot serve the disciplinary action until September 28, 20J(), 49 days later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 166 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~~1 16~00312-IR 1. Sexual Misooncluct 1. Suatained Diamiual Reaipation in Lieu ofT ermination 2. Failure to Report 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SuJDJDary From May 1, 2015, throush May 31, 2015, an Office oflntemal Affilin office technician allegedly engqed in sexual interccUJlle multiple timea with a 15-~ar~d girl. On January 13, 2016, outside law enforcement am:sted the office technician, but he allegedly failed to tepOrt his arresl Case Dlsp01ltion The hiring authority sualained the allegations and diBmissed the office technician. The OIG concurred. The office technician filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to State Personnel Boud proceedings, the department entered into a settlement apement wb=in the office technician resigned in lieu ofd iBmissal and aped not to seek or accept employment with the department in the future. The OIG concurred becauae the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the office technician does not work for the department in the future wu achieved Disciplinary Aneument Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policiea and procedures governing the disciplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating &Lfficicnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 167 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~-17 15-0001609-IR 1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Letter of Reprimand Letter oflrultruction 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On June 17, 20 15, a captain allegedly authorized the use ofp epper spray on an inmate wbo could not undemtand ordelll during a controlled use of me without prior approval. The captain and a lieutenant allesedly ordered a serseant to deploy mo"' pepperapray tban policy allows, the ~e~~eant allegedly deployed m-pepper spray than policy alloWll, and the lieutenant allegedly fililed to p=ent the use ofp epper spray. A psychiatrist allegedly authorized and a nurse allegedly failed to object to the use ofp epper spray. Case Dbposldon The hiring authority for the captain sustained the allegations, except for improperly worded allegations, and determined the captain should =eive a letter ofi nstruction. The hiring authority for the lieutenant and ~e~~eantaustained the allegations, except that the lieutenant ordered a ICIJeant to deploy pepper spray on an inmate who oould not undenltand ordem, and issued them both letlelll of instruction. The hiring authority for the the psychiatriat and nurse folllld insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. The OIG concurred with the determinations, except for the deciBion to iBsuc the captain a letter ofi nstruction and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's superviBor. At the higher level of" 'view, the hiring authority's superviBor decided to illauc the captain an official letter of reprimand. The OIG concurred. The captain filed an sppeal with the State Personnel Board. Following a hearing, the State Personnel Board revoked the discipliruuy action because the department failed to timely notify the captain of the proposed diBcipline. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and prooed=s governing the disciplinary process because neither hiring authority was P"'p8fed at the disciplinary findings oonfbrence. The department attorney made a poor =ommendation to the hiring authority, and the hiring authority for the captain selected an improper penalty based on the department attorney's "'commendation. The department attorney also failed to adequately represent the department at the State Personnel Board hearing, ~ulting in the State Personnel Board =oking the disciplinary action, and the department attomcy's cooperation with the OIG was virtually nonexiBtenL Despite the OIG's "'commendations, the department attorney inappropriately "'commended the hiring authority mail the letter of intent to take diBcipliruuy action when established case law ~~~personal service prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action. As a "'suit oft he department attorney's recommendation, the captain did not "'ceive the letter ofi ntent until at'ler the deadline to take discipliruuy action. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Inauflicient InJufficient Anestment Questions o H the HA conn.lled with the OIG coneemlllg the dilclpllnary determiDatioD1, wu the HA adequately prepared? Neither hiring authority watched tlr4 visual 1ftc ording of the use of. forup rior to the findings andp enalty COIIference. o Did the dep.n-nt attnmey provide appropriate legal COIISllltatlDn to the HA regardlllg dilclpliaary determfnatlDIQI? The tkpartment attorney improperly advis<!d the hiritJg authority for tlr4 captaill that corrective actioll was appropriate instead ofd isciplillary action. o Did the HA who partidpated Ill the dilclpllnary conference Hlect the appropriate penalty? The hiring authority for the captaitl select4d cor1fletive actkmfor the perralty whm disciplinary actiotJ was warrant«/. o Did the department attorney or employee relatloiQI of&er provide the OIG with a copy of the dnft dbclpliaary u:tllln and CODinlt 'lfitll the OIG? The tkpartment attorney did tJat provide a draft disciplinary action to the OIG for 1f1View prior to serving the captoin. o Did the deadiiDe for taldag dbclpllnuy action expire before the department completed iu tiadlllp UJd HrVed appropriate dbclpliaary u:tllln? The tkpartment attorney inappropriately recommmtkd the tkpartment serve the letter of intent to take disciplinary action on tlr4 captoin by mail, despite kllowing he was lettving tlr4 state for WICatiotJ 0t1 JUM 4, 2016. The OIG recommmtkd the tkpartmentp ersotlally serve tlr4 ldter of intmt. The department mail«< the Utter of intent 0t1 JuM 3, 2016, at id did ootp ersonally serve the disciplinary actioll utltil JUM 2 7, 201 6, tm days after the June 17, 201 7, deadline to take disciplinary action. o Did the department'• adwcate ..teqnate1y nbpoeaa and prepare aY&ilable 'lritn-1 for the hearing? The tkpartment attorney did tJat caU any witne3S«S to t4stify thot the captain was out ofs tote and was therqore tmavailable for servic4 oft lr4 letter ofi ntetJt, which is an aception to the tkadline to take disciplinary actiOtJ. o Did the department'• adwcate ..teqaate1y UJd appropriately addrealcgal. ilne1 prior to UJd dnring the SPB hearing? The tkpartment attorneyfail«< to argue the captain was utJaVailable bt~~cause he was out ofs tate atld therej01fl subject to the aception to timely servic4 oftlr4 disciplinary actio11. o Did the department'• adwcate praent the necaury available evidence regardlllg the allcgatiODI at the hearing? The tkpartment attorney fail«< ta presmt any evidetJce that the captaitl was out of state atld was the1fl/07fl tmavailable, which is atJ aception to the tkadUM to tofoe disciplinary actio11. o Did the dep.n-nt'1 adwcate appropriately have neceaary evidence P'-nted at the hearlllg moved into evidence? The tkpartment attorney fail«< to presmt evidmce thot tlr4 captain was out ofs tote and therqo1fl utJaVailable for service of tlr4 ldter of intmt. o Did the department'• adwcate appropriately repraent the department Ill petitllln for rehearing proeeedlllp before the SPB? The tkpartment attorney fail«< to presmt any evidence that tlr4 captain was out ofs tot4 and the1fl/07fl unavailllble for servia of the Utter of intent o Han eucntive review wu inwbd Ill the eue, did OIG reqnat the e:ucntive review? SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 168 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Th4 OIG disagrwd with th4 hiring authority's decision regllTrling th4 discipline for the capklin b«X~use th4 seriousness of the misconduct warTallted disciplinary action inst«ld of corrective action. o Did the departmeut attorney or employee relatlou of&er cooperate with ud pi'O\'ide coutiDD&l rul-tlme CODn.ltatioo with the OIG throughout the dbclpliDary phue? Th4 department attorney neglected to provide th4 OIG with a draft disciplinaty action for revieMI met with the hiring authority and associate directoT without rwtifying the OIG,failed to rwtify th4 OIG 011d provide copies ofth4 captoin's discovery reqwst 011d motion to dismiss, 011d delay«d consulting regllTrlingfiling a petitiotlfor rehetlrit1g. o Wu the dlsclplillary phue CODdDCied with dae dlllgeuce by the departmeut? Th4 delays are addressed in p..Wr qwstioiiS. Inddent Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-06-20 15-0001822-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. SuataiDcd Dismissal Resipation in lieu of Termination 2. Other Failure of Good Behavior 2. SuataiDcd Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject IDterview) Incident Suaunary On June 20, 2015, an officer was allegedly iDtoxicated in public and involved in a physical altercation. The officer also allesedly sroped a woman under her dreaa and was dishonest to outaide law enforcement "'guding the incident. On Augw~t 19, 2016, the officer suffered an out-of-11tsle conviction for criminal harassment. Case Dbp01ldon The hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurn:d The officer filed an appeal with the State Pemmmel Board At the pn>-hearing seUlement confc~e, pWlluant to a settlementapement, the officer n:signed in lieu ofd ismissal and aped to never seek employment with the department in the fulun:. The OIG concurred because the ultimate goal of ensuring the officer did not work for the department was achiewd Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Suflicient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 169 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~7-13 15-0001821-IR 1. Failure to Report L Sustained Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained 3. Threat/Intimidation 3. Not Sustained 4. Diaoourteoua Treatment 4. Not Sustained 5. Diaoourteoua Treatment 5.Exoncmed Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On July 13, 2015, an officer allegedly aak:ed an inmate ifa n injury to the inmate's lip WliS from a fight or the result of a sexualacl Tbe officer also allegedly drew and wrote ofrenaive notations on the inmate's bed card, threatened the inmate ifh e filed a complaint, IIIIIIOWII.lCd a sexually derogatory comment about the inmate over the buildins's public address system, and harassed the inmate after he filed a complaint against the officer. A second officer allegedly overbeud the first officet's inappropriate comment reguding the inmate's lip but fililed to report the misconduct to a supervisor. Case Dbpoaldon Tbe hiring authority suatained the allegations that the first officer made a diacourteoua comment about the inmate's lip and uttered a derogatory comment over the public address system, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed a 5 percent ssluy reduction fur nine months. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Boud. Prior to the State Pe1110nnel Boanl proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 5 penlCnt salary reduction fur fiw months and agreeing to remove the diaciplinuy action ftom the officet's official pelliOMel file after 18 months. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higber lewl of review because the penalty wu within departmental suideJinea. The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the second officer and iBsued a letter ofr eprimand. Tbe OIG concurred. Tbe second officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Boud but later withdrew his appeal. Dbcipllnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinary process becauae the department attorney did not adequately cooperate or prepare the diBciplinsry actions in compliance with policy, and the hiring authority settled the case without sufficient cause. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inallfficient Sufficicllt I Atse11ment Questions • Did the dep.n-nt attnmey provide to the HA and OIG ....-Itten confirmation of penalty dbcJISifolq? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney did not provide the hiring autharity or the OIG writtell confirmatiotJ of the pmalty discussioNI. • Wu the draft dlxlpllnuy action provided to the OIG for review ~proprlaldy drafted u deiCrlbed In the DOM? Th4 disciplinary actiolls did tJot inform the officers of the right to 7t!3p0tld to a mat~ager who was not inliOIV«< ;, the inW!3tigatiotJ. • Wu the dildpllnuy action Nrved on the 1nbject (1) ~proprlaldy dnfled u delcrlbed In the DOM? Th4 disciplinary actiolls did tJot inform the officers of the right to 7t!3p0tld to a mat~ager who was not inliOIV«< ;, the inW!3tigatiotJ. • H there wu a ~eUiement agreement, wu the ICttlcment conlbtent "lrith the DOM facton? Th4 tkpartmetll did tJot identifY at~y 1lfiW evidence, flaws, or risks justifYing the pmalty ralucti011. • H the penalty wu -dlfled by dep.n-nt action or a ICttlcment agreement, did OIG concor "lrith the modlfleatton? Th4 OIG did tJot coiiCUr with the decision to ..tua the ojjiud pmalty because the department did tJot idelltify tmy tJew evidetlce,jlllws, or risks justifYing the pmalty r«<uctio11. • Did the dep.n-nt attorney or employee relattou of&er cooperate "lrith and pnmde contlnaal real-time conn.Itltion "lrith the OIG thronghont the dbclpllnary pha~e? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney did not provide the OIG a copy of the draft settlement agreement. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 170 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-{18-18 15-{)QQ2060-IR 1. Dishooesly 1. Sustained Diamissal Suspenaion 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Sustained 3. Dishooesly 3. Not Sustained 4. Neglect of Duty 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminiat181ive Investiption Incident Summary On Auaust 18, 2015, an officer allegedly opened an inmate's cell door without authorization and fililed to n:-lock the door. The officer also allegecDy fililed to enaun: the 1oclring system was wmking at all times, report the locking system was IIUIIf'unctioning, and cany hia pemonal alarm and pepper spmy, and was allegedly dishonest about whether the locking system was wmkingproperly. On May 23, 2016, the officer was allegecDy dishonest in hia interview with the Office of Internal Aflitilll. Case Dispotidon The hiring authority austained all allegations, exoept that the officer fililed to "'"lock the door and was dishooest about whether the locking system was wmking properly, and diamissed the officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's dctenninstiona. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board Due to evidentiary problema, the depsrtment entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penally to a ooe-~ar suspension, removing the dishooesly alleption ftom the diaciplinaly action, and agreeing to not seck restitution ftom the officer for damage caused to the institution due to the inmate being out of the cell. The officer agreed to not wort< on the night shift for three ~ars. The OIG concurred with the settlement because during hearing pn:pamtion the department attorney dctennined that three witnesses would provide credible testimony that, ifr elied upon by the adminislnltive law judge, would result in the dishonesty alleption being not sustained. Disciplinary Aneument The department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subttandve Rating Su.f!icient Sufticient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 171 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• F1ndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~8-26 15~002256-IR L Diahoneaty 1. Sustailled Diami!aal Suspension 2. Inaubordinatioii/Wtllfill Disobedience 2. Sustained 3. Diahoneaty 3. Not Suatained 4. Inaubordinatioii/Wtllfill Disobedience 4. Not Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident SuJDJDary On Auguat 26, 2015, an officer allegedly lililed to fuUow a serJeant's inatruction to report for a nmdom drug teat and was allegecDy dishonest when she told the SCIJeant that sbe immediately went to and tried to call the teat site and thatabe was unable to contact the aeiJCUIL On Much 25, 2016, the officer was allegecDy dishonest during an interview with the Office ofintemal Affain. Case DIIIJOIItion Tbe hiring authority suatsined the allegations, except that abe was diahonestin claiming she tried to call the test site and was unable to reach ber supervisor, and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred. Tbe officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to the State PelliOilllel Boud proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agn:ement with the officer reducing the penalty to a one>-month suspension and removing the remaining dishonesty allegations. Tbe officer waived all back pay. Tbe OIG did not concur with the settlement. However, the settlement terms did not merit a higber level ofr eview because the officer had corrected her dishonest statements shortly after making them and the penalty was stiU significant. DiscipUnary Anemaent Tbe department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority delayed conducting the disciplinuy findings conference, removed an allegation the evidence supported, and significantly reduced the penalty. Tbe department attorney did not document penalty discussions. Plveedural Rating Subltantive Rating Inauflicient Insufl'icient I Aneasment Queations o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHcable) regarding dlxlpllnary detumlnatiou prior to making a flnal dect.loo? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complel4d its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority on May 17, 2016. Howevo; the hiring authority did not cONJult with the OIG and department attomey reganling the disciplinary determinatioN~ Ulltil June 8, 2016, 22 days thmtaftu. o Did the department attorney pmvlde tn the HA and OIG written conflnnatloo of penalty dbciiiSlnlll? 1114 department attorney did not provide written co'!firmation ofp malty discussioNI. o H there wu a xUiement agreement, wu the lettlcment coolbtent with the DOM factnn? 1114 seltU..mt did not appropriately consider the gravity of the miscolllluct. o H the penalty wu -dlfled by department actina or a lettlcment agreement, did OIG concnr with the modlfleation? 1114 OIG did not COIICUr with mmoving one of the dishonesty alkgatioNI and the significant pmalty raluction. o Wu the dilclpllnary phue condacted with dne dutgence by the department? 1114 delay is addressed in a p..Wr question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 172 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegadons Ftndingt Inidal Penalty Final Penalty 2015~9-01 15-0002532-IR 1. Disbonesty 1. Sustained Diamiaaal Resipation in Lieu of Termination 2. NesJect ofD uty 2. Sustained 3. Disbonesty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8tive Investigation Incident Summary On September 1, 2015, an officer allesedly inappropriately unlocked a door and entered a housing area when the exercise yard door was open. A serseant allesedly falsely documented that be had previously ordered the officer to review procedures reprding security for tbe area. Tbe officer and a second officer allesedly falaified their reports repnling tbe incident. On September 24, 2015, tbe first officer was allesedly dishonest to a captain. On April 13, 2016, and May 16, 2016, the first officer was allesedly dishonest during interviews with tbe Office ofI nternal Affitits. Case Disposidon Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against tbe first officer, except that his original report was dishonest, and dismilised the officer. Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the sergeant and second officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninations. Tbe officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. However, at tbe pro-hearing settlement conference, pumuant to a seUiement agreement, tbe officer resigned in lieu ofd ismilisal and agreed to never seek employment with the departmentin tbe future. Tbe OIG concurred because the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the officer did not work for tbe depsrtment was achieved. DbcipUnary Anetsment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures gowming tbe disciplinuy process. Plveedural Radng Subltandve Radng Sufficient Sut'licient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 173 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number AUegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015~9-03 15-0002533-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Saluy Reduction 2. Neglect of Duly 2. Sustained 3. Failure to Report 3. Not Sustained 4. Failure to Report Use ofFon:e 4. Not Sustained 5. Neglect of Duly 5. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Summary On September 3, 2015, two officers &llesedJy used physical force on an inmate and fitiled to "'Port it. Two otber officen1 observed tbe use of force and allio &llesedJy fitiled to "'l'Orl it. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority auslained the &llegation.t1 against tbe first Uld fourth officers and imposed 5 pen:ent salary reductions for one month on each. Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the &llegation.t1 against the second and third officers. Tbe OIG co~d with tbe hiring authority's detennination.t1. Tbe first officer did not file an appeal with tbe State Pen~onnel Board. Tbe fourth officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to State Personnel Board proceedings, tbe depsrtment entm:d into a settlement agreement reducing the fourth officer's penalty to a letter of "'!lrimllld and "'moving it fiom tbe officet's official personnel file. Tbe OIG did not concur with the settlement; howewr, tbe settlement lenllll did not merit a higher level of "'view because tbe penally reduction was within departmental suidelines. DbcipUnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing tbe diaciplinaly process belli!Uae the department attorney provided improper legal advice to tbe hiring authority, Uld the department entered into a settlement agreement without sufficient justification. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating IDauffic:ient Suftk:ient Anes1ment Questions o Did the dep.n-nt attorney provide ~propria. legal eoQllltatlon te the HA regarding dbclpllnary demmlnathuq? Th4 tkpartment attomeyp rovid«< advice to the hiring authority that was tJOllegally supported thOl the depanmmt was pr«ludedfrom takillg disciplillary actlotl bt~C~Jusejob tmillitJg was al1ftady provided to the officers. Th4 OIG disagreed with the depanmmt Ollonley's atlfJ/ysis fJtld the hiring authority imposed discipline as the OIG recommended. o H there wu a~ettlement agreement, wu the ICttle:ment conmtent with the DOM facten? Th4 tkpartment did t10l idetlti./Y fJtiY tJeW evidet~ee,jlaws, or risks justifjlillg the settlemetlt. o H the penalty wu -dlfled by dep.n-at action or aiCttle:ment agreement, did OIG conCPr with the modlfleatlon? Th4 OIG did t10l coiiCUr with the decision to redua the of.fiar) petlfJlty because the departmetJt did t10l idelltify tmy tJew evidetlce,jlllws, or risks justifYillg the reductiOtJ. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 174 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndlng1 Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-09-24 15-0002671-IR L Failure to Report Use of Force 1. Sustained Saluy Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Imaubotdination/WilliW Disobedienoe 2. Sualained 3. NesJcct ofD uty 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminiatnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On September 24, 2015, an offioer allegedly fililed to report hill own uae offtmle u wellu force he witneued. On September 25, 2015, a second offioer allegedly fililed to timely report an unn:uonsble uae offtmle reported to him. On May 17, 2016, the lint officer allegecDy violated an order from the Oflioe oflntemal Mmin to not discuas the investigation. Case DIIIJOIItion The hiring authority sualained the allegations against the lint officer and imposed a 5 pen=t saluy reduction for 24 months.T he hiring aulhority fuund insufficient evidence to sualain the allegation against the second oflioer. The OIG concurred with the hiring aulhority'a detenninations. The finlt oflioer filed an appeal with the State Penonnel Board. At the pre-hearing settlement conferenoe, the offioer provided new information that he sought on-the-job training and cOIIIIBeling from supervisors after the incident regarding uae-of-funJe reports and that he bad a better understanding of reporting requirements, thereby reducing the lilrelihood of recurrenoe. Baaed on the new infonnation, the department entered into a aetdement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 5 percent saluy reduction fur 18 months. The OIG concurred bued on the new infonnation and the penalty remained within departmentsl guidelines. DiscipUnary Anemaent The department did not comply with prooedurea governing the disciplinary prooesa becauae the department did not serve the disciplinary action in accordanoe with policy. The department attorney inaccuralely documented penalty discuasions. Plveedural Rating Subltllntive Rating Inauflicient Suflieient I Anestment Questions o Did the departmeut attorney pm\'lde tD the HA md OIG wrlttm cODflrmatiOD of pmalty dbciiSiimul? 1114 tkpartment attorney's written confirmation oft lr4 penalty discussions includ«< inaccuraf4 iliformation regarding the factoTs the hiring authority considered. o Wu the dilclpllnuy phue CODdDCied with du dntgeuce by the departmeut? 1114 tkpartment did not serve the disciplinary action within 30 days oftlr4 tkcision to take discjplillary action. Th<l hiring authority colllluct4d tlr4 discjplillary frndin&r cotiftJrenee on September 16, 2016. However, tlr4 tkpartment did not serve the disciplinary action until November 2, 2016, 47 days filter. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 175 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015~9-24 15-0002m-IR L Ulln'UOILible Uae ofForce LSuatained Saluy Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Diabonesty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On September 24, 2015, an offioer allegedly pusbed an inmate to the ground while responding to an incident and wu diabonestin his report reganling the matter. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation that the officer pushed the inmate, but not the reQ.ining allegation, and imposed a 5 percent saluy reduction for 24 months. The OIG concurred The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. At the pre-bearing settlement conference, the department entered into a aettlementagreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 5 percent saluy reduction fur six months. Tbe OIG did not concur. However, the aettlement terms did not merit a higber lewI of review because the penalty wu within the department's penalty guidelines. DbcipUnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinary prooeBB because the hiring authority did not timely consult reganling the disciplinary determinations and reduced the penalty without a reasonable buis. Abo, the department attorney did not timely provide legal advice to the hiring authority or adequately oooperate with the OIG. Pnlcedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflic:ient Sufficient Aues1ment Questions o Did the HA timely CODBlt with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHeablc) regarding dbelpllnary determlnatlo11.1 prior to making a final deeblOD? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkt4d its illwsligation and "!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authority on May 5, 2016. However, the hiring authority did not coiiSUit with the OIG and the depaTtment attorney reganlillg the di.sciplillary determinations until July 26, 2016, more than two months thereafter. o Did the deparn.nt attorney provide to the HA and OIG written conflrmatlOD of penalty dbeiiSIInll.l? Tlr4 department attomey did not provide the OIG with writt<!ll c01!{1171tation ofp enalty discussions. • Wu the OIG provided with a draft of the pre-hearing •Uic-nt conference statement prior to It being flied? Tlr4 department attomey did not provide the OIG with a draft p-e-hearillg seltlement coriference stotement before filillg. • If there wu a •Uic-nt agreement, wu the ICttlc:ment cODmtent with the DOM factnn? Tlr4 department did not idenli.JY any new evidence, flaws, or risks justifjlillg the reduction. • If the penalty wu -dlflcd by deparn.nt actlnn or a ICttlc:ment agreement, did OIG CODcnr with the modlfleatlon? Tlr4 OIG did not concur with the d«ision to reduce the ojjicer) penalty because the department did not identify any new evidence, flaws, or risej uslifyillg the reduction. • Did the deparn.nt attorney or employee relatln11.1 oflker cooperate with aod pnmde contlnnal real-time CODIIIitatiOD with the OIG thronghont the dbelpllnary pha~e? Tlr4 department att0711ey did not provide the OIG critical documents. • Wu the dildpllnary phue CODdncted with dne dDigence by the deparn.nt? One delay is addressed ill a prior question. In addition, the depaTtment attorney delayed almost two months before providillgjillallegal adviu to the hiring authority regarding the illwsligativefllldillgs thereby causing an unlk!Ccwary delay in concluding the disciplillary findillgs coriference. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 176 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-®-25 15~002453-IR 1. Diahoneaty 1. Sustained Diamisaal Reaipation in Lieu of Termination 2. Fail= to Report 2. Suataii!Cd 3. Miauae of Authority 3. Suataii!Cd 4. Diahoneaty 4. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Inveatiption Incident Sullllllllry On September 2S, 2015, a serJeant allegedly fillsified an incident report and a rulea violation report and onlen:d two officers to fillaifY their incident reports. One oft he officers allegedly falaified his incident report and a bolding cell log and failed to report the se!Jeanfs misconduct. A lieutenant allegedly allowed the SC!JCant and officer to falaify their reports and falaified his own report. Case Dbposldon The hiring authority suataii!Cd the allegations against the serJeant and the officer and dismissed them. The biring authority fuund insufficient evidence to auatain the allegations against the lieutenant. The OIG concum:d The officer and se!Jeanl filed appeals with the Stale Personnel Boanl. However, pursuant to settlement agreements, the SCIJCant and officer resigned in lieu ofd ismissal and agreed to never seek employment with the department in the fut=. The OIG coneurn:d becauae the ultimate goal of ensuring the serJeant and officer did not work fur the department wu acbievcd Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and proced=s governing the disciplinary proceas. Procedural Rating Subltandve Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 177 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• F1ndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-®-27 15~002386-IR l. Inaulxndinalion/WiUful Disobedience l. Suatailled Suspension Modified Suapenaion 2. Nepect ofD uty 2. Suatailled 3. Nepect ofD uty 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminiatnltive Investigation Incident SullliUry On September 27, 2015, an offioer allegedly fililed to sign his poat ordel'll, oonduct security checb, and conduct a proper inmate count. On September 28, 2015, a second and third offioer also allegedly ruled to sign their post ordel'8 and conduct security checks. On May 17, 2016, the third officer allegedly fililed to appear for an interview with the Office ofinlenull Aflilin. Case Dbpoaldon Tbe hiring authority suatained the allegations against tbe first officer, exoeptreprding the inmate count, and issued a letter of reprimand. The officer did not file an appeal with the Stale PeqonneJ Boanl. Tbe hiring authority auatained tbe allegation apinst the second officer for fililing to a sign a post order, but not the remaining allegation, and issued a letter ofi nstruction. Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against the third officer, except that be fililed to oonduct a security cbeck, and imposed a 22-working-day suapension. Tbe OIG co~d with the hiring authority's detenninalions. Tbe thin! offioer filed an appeal with the Stale Personnel Boanl. At the pn>-hearing aeUiement conference, the hiring authority aped to reduce the penalty to a20-worlring-day suspension and the diseiplinary action could be removed after 18 months. The OIG concurred becauae the officer expressed remol'lle and acoepted responsibility for his actions. Disciplinary Anemaent Tbe department did not comply with procedures soverning the disciplinary process becauae the hiring authority did not conduct the disciplinary findings conference in a timely manner, and the disciplinary actions did not comply with policy. Plveedural Rating Subltandve Rating Inauflicient Sut'licient I Assessment Questions o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHeable) regarding dlxlpllnary detennlnatlnu prior to making a final dect.loo? 1'114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs returned tlr4 case w the hiring authority on August 10, 2016. HowevD; tlr4 hiring authority did 1t0t consult with tlr4 OIG and the departmDJt attorney 1flgrurling the disciplinary detentJinaticlls UlltU &ptember 12, 2016; 33 days the1flajtu. o Wu the draft dbclpllnary action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted u deiCribed ln the DOM? 1'114 draft disciplinary actions did not inform tlr4 offkers of their right to 1f1Spond w a manager who was not i11volved in the i1lvt!3tigotio11. o Wu the dbdpllnary actlnn ICI'ved on the 111bject (1) appropriately dnfted u dacribed ln the DOM? Th4ftnal disciplinary acticlls did not inform tlr4 officers of their right to 1f1Spond w a manager who was not mvolved in the i11vt!3tigation. o Wu the dbdpllnary phue condliCted with dDe dJUcence by the department? 1'114 delay is addrt!3sed in a prior questio11. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 178 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegatlon1 Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-10-15 16-0000m-IR L DiBbonesty 1. Sustained Dillm issal Reaipalion in Lieu ofTennination Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On October 15, 20 15, an ombudsman allegedly provided fillae inftmnation and omitted infunnation on an employment background investigation questionnaire reguding acta ofc hild molestation involving his siblings and possession ofc hild pornography. On November 2, 2015, the ombudsman allegedly provided fiUse infurmation and omitted material infonnation during a background investigation interview. On Maroh 22, 2016, the ombudsman was allegedly dishonest during his interview with the Office ofintemal Affilin. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations and dismissed the ombudsman. Tbe OIG collCUIICd Tbe ombudsman filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. However, pursuant to a settlement agreement, the ombudsman resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed to never seek employment with the department in the future. Tbe OIG concurred because the ultimate goal of ensuring the ombudsman did not worl< fur the department was achieved Disciplinary Aneument Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Suflicient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 179 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number AUegations Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-10-15 16-000 1803-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Suataimed Diami!aal Suapcnaion 2. Retaliation 2. Suataimed 3. Neglect ofD uty 3. Suatained 4. Retaliation 4. Not Sustained 5. Neglect ofD uty 5. Not Suatained 6. Diacourteoua Treatment 6. Not Sustained Case Type: Administnllive Investigation Incident SullliUry Between October 15, 2015, and November 17, 2015, two officeJS and a cook allegedly uaed mcial or religioua slwa toward an inmate, the cook allegedly fililed to follow religioua meal preparation proc~, and the fiat officer allegedly fililed to report biB concerns about the inmate's slfi:ty. On November 17, 2015, the filllt officer and the cook allegedly removed the inmate from his job in the lritcben because the inmate filed an appeal and complained about staff misconduct On October 21, 2015, a third officer allegedly made a discourteous statement toward one inmate and nwisl and religioua slwa towud anotber inmate. On October 11, 2016, the filllt officer wu allegedly disbonest during his interview with the Office oflntemal Aflililll. Case Disposition The hiring authority sustained allegations that the filllt officer retaliated qainstan inmate, fililed to report alfi:ty concerns, and wu dishonest to the Office of Internal Aflililll and diami!aed him The hiring autbority found insufficient evidence to suatain the remaining allegations. The OIG ooncuned with the hiring authority's detenninations. After a Sloelly hearing, the department entered into a settlement aplCment with the officer reducing the penalty to a 6G-working-ilay suspension, transferring him from his current post, and removing his right to bid for posts for one year. The department also agreed to remove the discipli1181Y action from the officel's official personnel file after two yealll. The OIG did not concur with the settlement. However, the settlement terms did not merit a higber levd ofr eview because the penalty was still within the n111ge ofp enalties the disciplinuy guidelines allow and the likelihood ofr ecurrence was low because the officer would be removed from his poal Disciplinary Ane11ment The department's handling of the disciplinuyproceas wu substantively insufficient because the hiring authority entered into a settlement aplCment reducing a penalty without sufficient conBidellltion of the misconduct. The department attorney did not provide written confirmation ofp enalty discuasions. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Suflicient Inaufticicnt Atsessment Questions o Did the departmeut attorney provide to the HA md OIG wrlttm cODfbmatlOD of peulty dbciiSiiolUI? Th4 tkpartment att0111ey did not provide the hiring authority or the OIG written cOI!firmation ofp enalty discussions. o H there wu a xUiemeut agreement, wu the lettlcment cODibtent wtth the DOM facton? Th4 hiring authority reduced thep enalty without giving suffJC.ietlt weight to the serioust1ess oft he miscolldUCL o H the peulty wu -dlfled by departmeut actiOD or a lettlcment agreement, did OIG CODCDr wtth the modlfleattou? Th4 OIG did not COIICUT with reducing thep enalty from dismissal to a suspension b«X~use the sustoined miscollduct waTTanted dismissal SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 180 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-04 16-0000205-IR L Neglect of Duty L Sustained Letter of Reprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On November 4, 2015, two officers allegedly fililed to observe that two inmates were stabbing a thin! inmate multiple times on the exercise yard. Case Dbpo1ltion The hiring authority sustained the allegation against one of the officeJS and imposed a letter ofr eprimand. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the other officer. The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninations. The first officer did not file an appeal with the State Pen~onnel Boanl. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedures governing the disciplinary prooess. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-13 16-0001801-IR L NeglectofDuly !.Sustained Letter ofR eprimand Letter ofR eprimand 2. Failure to Report 2. Not Suatained 3. Unreasonable Use afForce 3. Not Suatained 4. NeglectofDuly 4. Not Suatained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On November 13, 2015, two oflicem allegecD.ypunched, kicked, and choked an inmate, and fililed to accurately report the use offurce. A lieutenant allegedly discarded a visual reconling oft he incident and failed to ensure a video-recorded interview of the inmate was perfurmed On December 2, 2015, a seoond lieutenant allegecD.y fililed to identify that the inmate alleged unreasonable uae offuroe, and fililed to ensure a video-recorded interview oft he inmate was perfurmed and the visual reconling of the incident was preserved On December 3, 2015, a captain also allegedly fililed to identify that the inmate alleged unreasonable uae off orce, and allegecD.y fililed to ensure a video-recorded interview oft he inmate was perfurmed and the visual reconling of the incident was preserved On December 8, 2015, a sergeant allegecD.y fililed to perfurm a video-reconled interview oft he inmate and fililed to complete required documentation. On December 28, 2015, the sergeant allegecD.y coeroed the inmate to prevent reporting the oflicem' misconduct, and a second sergeant allegecD.y fililed to report that the first sergeant coeroed the inmate to not report the alleged unreasonable uae of furoe. Case Dlspo1ltion The hiring authority sustained the allegations against the first SC!Jeant that he fililed to conduct a vidco-reconled interview and fililed to complete documentation, but not that he coerced the inmate to prevent reporting, and sualained all allegations against both lieutenants and the captain. The hiring authority issued lettem of reprimand to the setgeanl, lieutenants, and captain. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the officers and the second SC!Jeanl The OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninations. After a Sfoelly hearing, the hiring authority redlwed the captain's penally to a letter ofi nstruction becauae the captain expressed remorse and demonstnted that he had corrected the pnctice that led to the misconduct. The OIG concurred. The second lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Penonnel Boanl. Prior to the State Penonnel Boanl proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the lieutenant redlwing the penally to a letter of instruction. The OIG concurred with the settlement because the lieutenant wrote an unsolicited memorandum to the hiring authority taking responsibility and expressing remorse fur his misconduct. The first lieutenant did not file an appeal with the State Penonnel Boanl. Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedures governing the disciplinary prooess. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 181 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-24 16-0000271-IR 1. Ulln'UOILible Use ofForce l.Sustained Saluy Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. NeaJect ofD uly 2. Sustained 3. Disboneaty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investigation Incident Suaunary On November 24, 2015, five oflicen allegecDy inappropriately entered the cell of an inmate who was refUsing a bed move instead ofc onducting a conJrolled cell extraction. A aert~eant allegedly failed to order a conJrolled cell extraction, fililed to superviBe the incident, and was diBhonest in his tqJOrting of the incidenl Case Disposition Tile hiring authority sustained the allegations, except that the seiJC&Ill was disboneat, imposed a 10 pen:ent saluy reduction for 12 months on the aert!Canl and issued !etten oftqlrimand to the oflicen. Tile OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Tile seiJC&Ill and fuur oft he oflicen accepted responsibility and expressed remorse at their Slully hearings. The department entered into settlement qreements wherein the hiring authority withdrew the fuur officm' !etten of reprimand and issued letters of instruction. Tile OIG concumxl based on the filcfol!lleamed at the Slully hearing. The fifth officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Boanl. The aert!Canl filed an appeal with the State Personnel Boanl. At the hearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the seiJC&Ill modifying the saluy reduction to 10 pen:ent for eight montha. Tile OIG did not concur but did not seek: a higher level ofr eview. DbcipUnary Anessment Tile department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the disciplinary findings CO!lim:nce, entered into a settlement agreement with the aert!Canl the Slully filcton did not justify, and neglected to serve the disciplinary actions according to policy. Tile employee relations officer did not adequately cooperate with the OIG. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Suflicient I Anestment Questions o Did the HA timely collftlt with the OIG and the department attorney (If appHeable) regarding dlxlpllnary detumlnatiou prior to making a final dect.loo? 1114 Of!ic4 ofI nternal Affairs complel4d its inW!3tigation and rqerred the matter w the hiring authority 011 July 27, 2016. However; the hiring authority did not cONJult with the OIG and the department attomey reganling the disciplinary determinatiom Ulltil October 12, 2016, 77 days thereafter. o Wu the draft dbclpllnuy action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted u deKribed ln the DOM? 1114 draft disciplinary actiom did not advise the sergeant and officeT3 oft he right w Tt!3JKR1d wan uninvolved manager. o Wu the dbdpllnary action KrVed on the ~abject (1) appropriately dnfled u dacribed ln the DOM? 1114 final disciplinary actions did not advise the sergeant and officeT3 of the right w 7t!3p011d w an uninvolved manager. • H there wu a .eUiement qreement, wu the ICU!ement coolbtent with the DOM facton? 1114 department entered inw a seltU..ent agreement with the sergeant reducing the penalty more than the Skelly factors WfJITanted. o H the penalty wu -dlfled by department action or a ICU!ement qreement, did OIG concnr with the modlfleation? 1114 OIG did not concur because the hiring authority reduced the sergeant's penalty more than the Slcelly fackJTs justified. o Did the department attorney or employee relatlou officer cooperate with and provide contlnnal real-time coniDitatloo with the OIG thronghont the dlxlpllnary pha~e? Dt!3pite repeated requests, the employu relatiom ojJiceT did not timely provide the OIG requt!3ted documents. • Wu the dbdpllnary phue condncted with dne dDJcence by the department? One delay is addressed in a prior question. hi addition, the department did not serve the disciplinary actiom within 30 days of the decision w take disciplinary action. 1114 hiring authority conducted the disciplinary fllldings conference 011 October 11, 2016. However the department did not serve the disciplinary actiom Ulltil November 22, 2017, 42 days later. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 182 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-27 16-0000264-IR l. Nepect ofD uty l. Suatained Salary Redlwtion Salary Reduction 2. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 2. Suatained 3. Weapona 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllllry On November 27, 2015, an officer allegedlyposseMed a firearm while intoxicated, left the fm:um unaecun:d in the oenter conaole ofhiB whicle in plain view, and needed outside law enforoement to take him to hia residence because he waa unable to can: for him!elf Case Dbp01ition The hiring authority sustained the allegations, except fur being in posseasion ofa firearm while intoxicated, and imposed a 5 pen1ent salary n:dlwtion fur nine months. The OIG concum:d. The oflioer filed an appeal with the State PCiliOnnel Board. Following a hearing, the State PCiliOnnel Board upheld the penalty. DiscipUnary Ane11ment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedures gowming the diBciplinaty prooess. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 183 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-12-16 16-0001226-IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. SUB!ained Salary Reduction Modified Saluy Reduction 2. Medical-Undetermined/Other 2. Not Sustained 3. Neslect ofD uty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminilitl8tive Investiption Incident Sullllllllry On December 16, 2015, a physician allegecDy perlbnned a body cavity search of an inmate fur possible contmband without approval and without using the proper equipment, and fililed to document the search. Case Dbp01idon The hiring authority sustained the allegation that the physician fililed to document his intenwtion with the inmate, but not the remaining alleptiona, and imposed a 5 percent aalmy reduction for aix months. The OIG concurred except for the decision to not sustain the allegation that the physician violated policy reguding body cavity searches. The OIG did not aeek a higher lewl of review because the hiring authority imposed a penalty that was within departmental suidelines. The physician filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. The department misplaced the State Personnel Boud notices ofa ppeal and learned of State Personnel Boanl proceedings eight days befure the pre-hearing settlement conrerence. Because oft he departments lack of awareness reguding the appeal and the legal implications, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the physician reducing the penalty to a 5 percent aalmy reduction fur two montba and agreed to remove the diaeiplinmy action ftom the physician's official penonnel file after one year. Although the department did not consult with the OIG reguding the appeal or settlement, the OIG concurred with the settlement because the department attorney's fililure to timely file a critical document with the State Personnel Boanl severely Ulldermined the department's case. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinmy process because the department misplaced State Personnel Boanl documents, the department attorney did not timely file a pre-hearing settlement conft:rence statement, inaccllllllely documented the OIG's involvement during settlement negotiations, and prepared a legally insufficient draft diaciplinmy action. The department attorney and hiring authority did not adequately consult with the OIG. Pnleedural Ratln1 Substantive Ratln1 IDallfficient Inauffic:ient Anes1ment Questions a Wu die draft dlxlpi.IDuy action provided 1o the OIG for review approprlaldy drafted u dexribed ID the DOM? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney fmkd to identifY the p/lysicia/1 as a maMger ill the draft disciplinary action. o Did die depan-nt file a wrltkn pro-heariDg 1eUiement conference ltatement wl1h the SPB contalniDg all req111red IDformatlen IDciDdiDg. bllt DOt llmlted lo, a IIUIIIIIar)' of ltlplllated facti, time atlmaW, nDMber ofwitne-1 wl1h a brlefltatementof ~ected teltlmony,lbt of dOCilmentuy evidence, and ltatement of idgnlflcant evidentiary illllCI? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney fmkd to timelyf t1e a pre-hearit1g sera-mt conference statemmt beCIJUSe the lkpartmmt misplaced t1otic«1 from the State Persot~t~el Boanl. o If the cue ICttled, did die departmeat attorney or employee relatleu of&er properly complete die CDC Form 3011? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney inaccurately reflected contacting th4 OIG during th4 settkmetlt discussiotls at the pre-hearing settkmmt cotiference. a Did die HA con111It wl1h the OIG and department atlo:rlley (If applk:ab1e) before modify!Dg die pentity or agneiDg to a 1eUiement? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt did t1ot cotJSUlt with the OIG bqore modijjlillg the peMlty or etrterillg itlt<l a settlemellt agreemet~t. o Did die depan-nt attorney or employee relatleu of&er cooperate wl1h and provide coatiDD&I real-time conlllltlltion wl1h die OIG dlro11gho11t the dlxlpllnary phue? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt attorney and employee relatiotls officer failed to consult with th4 OIG regatrlit1g the State Persot1MI Boanl appeal, th4 setting of the pre-hearing settkmmtcotiference, the lkpartmmt's motiot1 to ft1e a late pre-lr4aring settklmmt cotifem!C4 statemetll, th4 peMlty modificatiotl, and the settkmetlt • Did die HA cooperate wl1h and provide contiDDal real-time cODIDitatlen with the OIG throllghollt the dlxlpi.IDuy phue? Tlr411irillg authority failed to cONiult with the OIG regarding modifying the pmalty aNI the settkmmt SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 184 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-01-08 16-000068G-IR l. Disoourfeoua T"'alment l. Sustained Coullaeling Counseling 2. Dii!CriminaliOIII'Haruament 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administndive Inveatigation Incident Suaunary From January 8, 2016, throush January 20, 2016, an UIIO(liate warden and a captain allegedly barused a lieutenant and refbrred to him as a "ral" On January 25, 2016, another lieutenant allegedly taped a picture of a cheeae wedge on the window oft he filllt lieutenant's office. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation against the lieutenant and issued an employee counseling =Old. Tbe hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain the allegations against the associate wanlen and the captain. Tbe OIG ooncumxl with the biring authority's determinations. Disciplinary Aneument Tbe department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinaly process because the biringauthority did not adequately ooopende with the OIG and the department attorney did not provide the OIG with written oonfumation ofp enalty discussions. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient I Anettment Questions o Did the department attorney pm\'lde In the HA and OIG written conflnnatlon of penally dbciiSIIiolUI? Th4 tkpartmetll attorney did not provide the OIG with wrilt<!ll cOI!{vmatiotJ ofp eNJ/ty discuutom. o Did the HA cooperate with and pm\'lde eontlnnal real-time eonsnltatlnn with the OIG thmnghont the dlxlpllnuy phue? Th4 hiring authority did tJot provitk the OIG with a draft of the employee coumeling recordf or review before serving it 011 the lieutmatJt Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-03-03 16-0001215-IR l. Driving Under the Influence l. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduetion 2. Other Fsilun: ofG ood Behavior 2. Sustained 3. Dishonesty 3. Not Sustained Case Type: Di=t Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On Manlh 3, 2016, an officer wu amated for allegedly driving under the influence ofa lcohol. The officer wu also allegedly in possession of a fin:arm and ammunition while under the influence and dishonest to oulaide law enfutament when be denied drinking alcohol. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations, except dishoneaty, and imposed a 5 peltlent salary "'duction for 12 months. The OIG con~ with the biringauthority's determinations. Tbe officer did not file an appeal with the State Pei!IOIIDcl Board Di1cipilnary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policiea and procedures governing the disciplinary proceas. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Suflieient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 185 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-03-15 16-0001331-IR L Insubordination/Willfill Disobedience 1. Sustained Suapcnaion Suapensi.on 2. Intoxication 2. Sustained 3. Other Failure of Good Behavior 3. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On Man:h 15, 2016, an officer wu arrested after be allegedly cbok:ed and puabed biB minor daughter while intoxicated and subsequently allegedly failed to submit a memorandum "'prding tbe incident as a lieutenant had directed. On July 13, 2016, tbe officer pled pity to inffiction ofi njury on a cllild Case DIIIJOIItion Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations, imposed a 6~worlring-G.y suspension, and served a non-punitive separation based on the officCJ's failure to meet minimum qualifications oftbe job due to the suiltyplea that prevented him ftom possessing a fin:ann. The OIG oon~ with the hiring authority's determinations. Tbe officer filed an appeal with tbe State PeDOnnel Boanl. Prior to tbe hearing, tbe officer withdrew his plea and entered a plea to an offense that did not P"'vent him ftom possessing a tm:ann. Based on tbe changed plea, tbe department entered into a settlement agreement withdrawing the non-punitive separation. Tbe OIG ooncum>d with tbe seUlement based on tbe change in ciroumstanoes. Although tbe hiring authority withdrew tbe non- punitive termination, the suspension ~ed DiscipUnary Anemaent Overall, the department complied with policies and procedures governing tbe disciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Suflicicnt I Incldent Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Ftndingt Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-04-07 16-0001645-IR L Failure to Report L Sustained Salary Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Neglect ofDuty 2. Sustained 3. Failure to Report 3. Not Sustained 4. Neglect ofDuty 4. Not Suataincd Case Type: Ad.ministnltive Investigation Incident Summary On Apri17, 2016, an officer allegedly Cl<lleeded the speed limit while driving a State vehicle. A second officer allegedly fililed to timely report the finlt officCJ's speeding and attempted to photograph or visually =on! the finlt officer. Tbe seoond officer also allegedly wu asleep on duty and attempted to dissuade tbe finlt officer ftom "'p!lrting biB sleeping. Case DIIIJOIItion Tbe hiring authority sustained allegations that tbe seoond officer attempted to photopaph or visually "'oord tbe finlt officer and attempted to dissuade the finlt officer ftom reporting misoonduct, but not the~ allegations, and imposed a 10 percent salary "'duetion for 20 months. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to sustain tbe allegation against the finlt officer. Tbe OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations. Tbe seoond officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Bosrd Prior to tbe pre-hearing settlement conference, tbe officer submitted a letter to tbe hiring authority exp-sing remODC and apologizing for biB actions. Based on this new information, tbe hiring authority "'ached a seUlement IIJR'ement with the officer "'clueing the penalty to a 10 percent salary "'duetion for 15 months. The OIG concurred based on tbe new information. DiscipUnary Anemaent Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing tbe discplinuyprocess. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Suflicient Suflieient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 186 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-04-18 16-0001725-IR L NesJect ofD uly LSustained Saluy Reduction Modified Salary Reduction 2. Diabonesty 2. Not Sustained 3. Urueaaonable Use ofFon1e 3. Not Sustained 4. NesJect ofD uly 4. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident SullliUry On Apri118, 2016, an officer allegedly pushed an inmate to the ptNild while responding to an alarm, fitiled to report pushing the inmate to the ground, and wu dishonest in hiB report reptding the incident Case Dbpoaltlon Tbe hiring authority sustained the alleption tbat the officer fililed to report his use offunJe, but not tbat be wu diabonest or used urueuonable fonle, and impoaed a 10 pen:ent salary ~eduction fur six months. Tbe OIG did not concur with the fililure to sustain diabonesty or urueaaonable use offmce but did not seek a hisJler level ofr eview. The officer filed an appeal with the State PeJSonnel Boud. Prior to the State Penonnel Board bearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 10 peltlent salary ~eduction fur four months because the officer accepted responsibility. Tbe OIG did not concur with the settlement but did not seek: a hisJler level ofr eview. DbcipUnary Anessment Tbe department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not timely conduct the disciplinary findings oonft:renoe or select the appropriate penalty and reduced a penalty tbat wu already too low. The department attorney provided poor legal advice. Procedural Rating Subttantlve Rating Inauffic:ient InJuffic:icnt Aues1ment Questions o Did the HA timely CODB!t with the OIG and the department attorney {If appHeablc) regardiDg dbelp!IDary detenn1Datlo11.1 prior to maldDg a filial deeblOD? Tlr4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs compkt4d its illwsligation and "!ferret/ the matter to the hiring authority on August 25, 2016.. However, the lUring authority did not coiiSUit with the OIG and the department attorney 1flgardillg the disciplinary det4rmillotion3 until October 12, 2016, 48 daJ13 the1flajter. o Did the departmeDt attorney provide appropriate legal CODBitatioD to the HA regardiDg dbelp!IDary detenn1Datfo11.1? Tlr4 department attomey did not recommend a penalty COIISistent with dishonesty and unret13onable use off orce despite a p1flponderance of the evidence supp arting these allegali0113 and corresponding penalty. o Did the HA who partldpated Ill the dbdpliDary collference ICicet the appropriate Employee Dbelp!IDary Matrix eharge1 and caDICI for dbdpliDe? Tlr4 hiring authority did not sel«t dishonesty or unret130nable use off orce despite a preponderance of the evidence supporting these allegali0113. o H there wu a seUiemeut agreement, wu the ICU!ement eODibtent with the DOM faeton? Tlr4 initial penalty did not rql«t the severity of the misconduct. Therqore, a 1ftduction was not 'Warranted. o H the peualty wu -dlflcd by departmeut aetioD or a ICU!ement agreement, did OIG eODCllr with the modlfleatlou? Tlr4 OIG did not concur with the modification because the initialp enalty did notrqlect the serkJusness of the misconduct Therqo1fl, a T«<uction 'Wtl3 illappropriote. o Wu the dbdpliDary phue eODdliCted with dDe diligence by the departmeut? Tlr4 delay is addressed ill a prior question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 187 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-06-ffl 16-0001870-IR 1. Urueasonable Use ofFon:e 1. Sustained Letter ofR eprimand Leiter ofReprimand Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SuJDJDary On June 7, 2016, an officer a!Iesedly fon:iblypulled a wheelchair-bound inmate into bis cell wben the inmate posed no imminent threaL Case Dbpo1ition The hirins authority sustained the alleption and issued a letter of reprimand. The OIG coiiC\Liml. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Bosnl. DbcipUnary Anessment biri"' The department did not comply with procedures sovcmins the disciplinaly process because the authority did not timely conduct the diacipliiiiiiY findinp conim:nce, the discipliiiiiiY action did not include all notice as described in departmental policy, and the department did not serve the disciplinaly action in acconlance with policy. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating IDallffic:ient Sufficiatt I Aues1ment Questions o Did the HA &.1y co....,lt with the OIG Uld the department attorney {If appHeablc) regardiDg dbelpllnary detennlllatlo11.1 prior to maldDg a filial deeblOD? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs retumed the case to the hiring authority 011 August U, 2016. However, the hirillg authority did 1101 coiiSUit with the OIG regardillg the disciplillary determinations until November 22, 2016, 90 days thereafter. o Wu the draft dbclpliDuy action provided to the OIG for review appropriately drafted u deiCribed Ill the DOM? Th4 draft disciplillary action did not advise the offscer oft he righi to resJKIIId to an uni11voiV«< manager. o Wu the dbdpliDuy action ICI"ved on the 111bject (1) appropriately drafted u dacrlbed Ill the DOM? Th4 di.sciplillary action did not advise the offscer oft he righi to rt!3JK111d to an uni11voiV«< manager. o Wu the dbdpliDuy phue conducted with dne dntgence by the department? One delay is addressed ill a ]ITWr questio11. hi additi011, the department did 1101 serve the disciplillary action withill30 days of the decision to tolu di.sciplinary acti<m. The hiring authority conducted the disciplillary fllldmgs conjertJt~Ce 011 Nov..ber 22, 2016. However, the departmetll did not serve the di.sciplillary action untiiJanuary 25, 201 7, 64 days later. Incidmt Date OIG Case Number Allegations Flndlnp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-ffl-01 16-000 1856-IR 1. Weapons 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Intoxication 2.Suatained 3. Nepect ofD uty 3.Suatained 4. Discourteous Treatment 4.Suatained 5. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 5.Suatained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident SuJDJDary Between July 1, 2016, and July 3, 2016, an officer allesedly fiilled to qualifY for and obtain certification to carry a Molllll while off duty and submit an annual firearms certification fonn. On July 3, 2016, the officer was am:sted for public intoxication. At the time ofbis am:st, the officer was allesedly in possession ofa concealed M:apon while intoxicated and without a wlid permit, and wu allesedly discourteous to outside law enfon:ement. Case Dispo1ition The hirins authority sustained the alleptiOJJS and imposed a 10 percent saluy reduction for ten months. The OIG concurred. The officer did not file an appeal with the Stste Penonnel Board. DiscipUnary Anessment Owrall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures sovemins the disciplinaly process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficiatt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 188 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-0S-06 16-0001972-IR 1. Mislllle of Authority l.Suatained Diami!aal Demotion 2. Driving Under the Influence 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Suaunary On Augu.st 6, 2016, a sefiCU'l was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol and allegedly mislllled her authority when abe identified heiSCifu a sergeant to obtain leniency. Case Disp01ition The hiring authority suatained the allegations and served the officer with notice ofd iami!aal and non-punitive termination. The OIG concum:d The sefiCU'l filed an appeal with the State PCDonnel Boud. At the p"'"hearing settlement conft:rence, the se,.,ant provided evidence ofa ttendance in substance ablllle counseling, continued sobriety, and restoted driving privileges. Based on the new infunnation, the department enteted into a settlement agreement with the SCIJC&nt withdrawing the nun-punitive termination and ~educing the penalty to a demotion plua a 60-worlring-&y suspension. The sergeant agreed to provide continued proof of substance abWie counseling and submit to random drug and alcohol testing for three ye&IS. The OIG concum:d with the settlement agreement bssed on the new information and the penalty remained within departmental guidelines. DbcipUnary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Pnleeduni Ratln1 Substantive Ratln1 Suflicient Suflicient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findinp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-0S-14 16-0001942-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Suatained Dismissal Resignation in Lieu of Termination 2. Insubonlination/Willfill Disobedience 2. Suatained 3. Intoxication 3. Suatained 4. Discourteoua Tleatment 4. Suatained 5. Other Failure of Good Behavior 5. Suatained 6. Discourteoua Tleatment 6. Not Suatained 7. Intoxication 7. Unfuundcd Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Suaunary On Augu.st 14, 2016, outside law enforcement am:ated an officer fur allegedly driving under the influence. The officer was also allegedly diBhonest to outaide law enfOrcement, uttered profimities at emeiJCilcy first responders, pushed one of the reapondCJll on the cheat, went to another officel's residence and pounded on the door wbile yelling, resulting in outside law enfureement response, and violated the feiDIII ofbis probation by driving under the influence of alcohol. On Augu.st 30, 2016, the officer allegedly violated a court order by lililing to appear in court, resulting in a misdemeanor warl8nt for bis am:at being issued on September 22, 2016. Case Disp01ition The hiring authority suatained the allegations, except for creating a distwbance at another officet's residence, and dismissed the officer. The OIG concum:d. The officer filed an appeal with the State PCDonnel Board. On the day oft he hearing, p111Suant to a settlement agreement the officer resigned in lieu of dismissal and agreed to never seek employment with the department in the fUture. The OIG concurted becaW~e the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the officer did not work fur the department was acltieved DbcipUnary Aneument Ovenll, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the diaciplinsly process. Pnleedural Ratln1 Substantive Ratln1 Suflicient Suflicient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 189 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number Allegation• Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-08-27 16-0002074-IR 1. DW1011esty l.Suatained Diami!aal Suapenaion 2. Driving Under the Influence 2. Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SullliUry On Augu.st 27, 2016, an offioer was am:ated for allesedJy driving Ullder the influence of alcohol and wu allegedly dishonest to oulside law enfon:ement. Case Dispotition The hiring authority suatained the allegations and served the officer with a notice of diamissal. The OIG concum:d The offioer filed an appeal with the Stste Pemonnel Board. At a pre-hearing settlement conft:rence, the offioer prodiKlCd new evidem:e regarding a trsumatic ewnt that triggered his substsnce abuse problem, the probability that the ewnt and drinking redu.oed the likelihood he was intentionally dishonest, and evidence ofh is progre88 in a post-ofrenae counseling and recovery pro pam. Based on the new infonnation, the hiring authority entered into a settlement agreement with the officer removing dish011eaty from the disciplinary action and modifying the diami!aal to a six-month suapension. The officer agreed to submit to alcohol testing at wolk, provide proof of regular attendance in a recovetyprognun, and agreed he would be dismi88Cd from the department ifh e violated the settlement terms. The OIG concum:d based on the new infonnation and settlement tenns. Disciplinary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures gcverning the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating &lffic:icnt Sufli<:ient I IncidmtDate OIG Case Number Allegations Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-09-18 16-0002096-IR 1. Discourteoua Treatment 1. Suatained Salaty Redll(ltion Salaty Redll(ltion 2. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 2.Suatained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SullliUry On September 18, 2016, an offioer was am:ated for alleged public intoxication and poaSC88ion of an open container in a vehicle. The officer also allegecDy created a distwbance at a gas station, chastised a private citizen, and lrnocked a hat out of the citizen's hand Case Dbpotition The hiring authority suatained the allegations and imposed aS percent salaty redll(ltion for six months. The OIG concum:d. The offioer did not file an appeal with the Stste Personnel Boanl. Di1cipiinary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures gcverning the disciplinary process. Procedural Ratina Substanti-ve Rating &lffic:icnt Sllfli<:icnt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 190 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Findlngt Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-10-19 15-0002768-IR 1. Neglect of Duty 1. Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Administl8live Investigation Incident Summary On October 19,2016, an Office ofCom:ctional Safety senior special agent sllegedly fitiled to review, approve, and update a special operations plan pertaining to an opemtion that endangered the public and resulted in a psrolee being shot. Tbe senior special agent also allegedly fililed to ensure agents under his supervision were properly briefed wben the plan changed and that they fullowed policies, procedures, and training. A special agent also sllegedly fitiled to oomplete and update the special operations plan and enaun: that other agents wen: properly brieftld when the plan changed. Tbe special agent and a second special agent allegedly mishandled crime scene evidence, fililed to fullow policies, prooedun:s, and tlaining to protect the public and the parolee, and fililed to enaun: other agents adbered to policies, prooedun:s, and tlaining. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against the senior special agent and first special agent and imposed ~working-day suspensions on each. Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations against the second special agent, except that he mishandled evidence and an improperly wonled allegation, and imposed a ~working-day suspension. Tbe department attorney did not agree with the penalties and elevated the matter to the hiring authority's supervisor. Tbe OIG concurred with the hiring authority's determinations regarding the allegations but not with penalty dctenninations and joined the department attorney's deciBion to seek a higber lew! of review. The department attorney, the department attorney's supervisor, and the OIG n:(lOIIUIII'nded dismissal. At the higher lew! of review, the hiring authority's supervisor dctennined the allegations and penalties would remain as initially determined. Tbe senior special agent and special agents filed appeals with the State Pen~onnel Boanl. Tbe first special agent retired and ruled to appear fur his pn>-hearing seUiement oonfcrcnce. Tben:fun:, the adminiatl8live law judge deemed the sppeal withdrawn. Prior to the State Personnel Boanl bearing for the senior special agent and second special agent, the department entered into settlement agreements reducing the penalties to 45-working-day suspensions, paying each 45 days ofbackpay, and agreeing to remove the disciplinary actions from their official personnel files 18 months after the efrective date. Tbe OIG did not concur with the settlement terms but did not seek a higlter level ofr eview. Disciplinary Aneument Tbe department did not comply with policies and prooedun:s governing the disciplinary prooess because the hiring authority and hiring authority's supervisor did not identify a penalty that re:Hected the serious consequence that oocum:d, multiple acta ofm iscondu.ct, and potential harm to the public and other law enfOrcement oflicen1. Abo, the department entered into settlement agreements without sufficient justification and contrary to the department attorney's recommendation. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Iuuffic:ient Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA who partldpmd In the dbdpllnary conference ldcet the appropriate penalty? Tlr4 hiring authority improperly sd«<4d SUSptJtJSioNJ ratlw tlum dismissals as the appropriate penaltW. a H there wu a ~eUiement agreement, wu the ICU!ement eonlbtent with the DOM faeton? Tlr4 hiring authority settl«< the ctJSes without new evidence, flaws, or risiCJ, and contrQI)I to the depanment attoi"My's nJCommendaticn to proceed with the State Persot~nel Board hearing. a H the penalty wu -dlfled by department aetlnn or a ICU!ement agreement, did OIG eonenr with the modlfkatlon? Based 011 the multiple acts ofm isconduc4 serious comequences that occurred, potential ha11t1 and risk to thep ublic and other law enforcement officers, alldfmlure to identifY any changed cin:UIII3tances, the OIG did not concur with the eklcision to modify the penalties. o Han exeentive review wu lnwbd, wu the appropriate deet.lon made? Tlr4 hiring authority's supervisor improperly idelltifsed suspmsioNJ rother thon dismissals as thep roper penalties. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 191 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA South Incident Date OIG Case Number Alle gad ons Flndlngt Initial PenaJty Final Penalty 2007-01-02 16-0001701-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. SU81ained Diamillaal Resignation in Lieu ofTennination 2. Dishonesty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Summary On Janwuy 2, 2007, an officer allesedly secured employment with the department under 1il1se pretenses by ftliling to disclose on hia employment application that he had unsuccessfully applied for employment with other law enfuroement qencies, been convicted ofa misdemeanor, been placed on probation and a court-ordered diveiSion prognun, attended college, had an oulstanding wammt, fililed to appear fur or violated terms ofa court order, and had been questioned, cited, detained, finselprinted, or investigated by outside law enfuroement. On August 4, 2016, the officer was allegedly dishonest to the Office of Internal Aflilirs. Case Disposidon The hiring authority sustained all allegations, except that the officer fililed to appear for or violated teiDIS of a court order, and dismissed the officer. The OIG concurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Pen10nnel Boud. Prior to State Pen10nnel Board p~t~ceedinp, the hiring authority entered into a settlementapement wb=by the officer "'signed in lieu ofd iBmissal. The OIG concurred because the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the officer did not work fur the department was achieved. Dbcipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and proced~s governing the disciplinary process. Pnleedural Rating Subltandve Radng Sufficient Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Inidal Penalty Final PenaJty 2015-08-11 16-00009W.IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismissal Dismissal 2. Neglect of Duty 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Adminiatnltive Investigation Incident Summary On August 11, 2015, an officer allegedly fililed to report his inwlvement in a use-of-furce incident. On August 26, 2015, a lieulenantallegedly wrote and signed a 1il1se report in a second officer's name "'gsrding the use-of-furce incident. Case Disposidon The hiring authority sustained the allegations qainst the lieutenant and served the lieutenant with a notice of diBmissal. The OIG concumd However, the lieutenant -igned bef-the disciplinary action took effi:ct. The hiring authority placed a letter in the lieutenant's official personnel file indicating he "'signed pending disciplinary action. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation against the officer. The OIG concumd Disciplinary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and proced~s governing the disciplinary process. Pnleedural Rating Subltandve Radng Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 192 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-1~15 16-0000202-IR L Unreasonable Use ofForce 1. Sustained Suspension Suspension 2. NeglectofDuty 2. Sustained 3. Unreasonable Use ofForce 3. Not Suatained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investiption Incident Sullllllllry On October 15, 2015, three officers allegc:dly deployed pepper spray on an inmate when there wu no imminent threal One oft he officers and a fuurth officer allegecDy struck the inmate with a baton when then: was no imminent threat. Case Dbp01ition The hiring authority sustained the allegation against the finlt officer and imposed a two-womng-ilay suspension. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sua lain the allegation against the second officer, but added and sustained neglect of duty for approaching the cell and imposed a two-working-day suapenBion. The OIG co~d with the hiring authority's detenninations except fur the decision to not sustain unreasonable uae offurce against the second officer. The OIG did not seek a higher lewl ofreviewbecauae the hiring authority imposed an appropriate penalty. The hiring authority fuund insufficient evidence to sustain the alleptions against the third and fuurth officers. The OIG did not concur but did not seek a higher level of review becauae the actions were not egrcgioua based on the circumstances. The first officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Boanl. The second officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Boud. Following a hearing where the department attorney sufficiently n:prcaentc:d the department, the State Peraonnel Boanl revoked the officer's suspension. The adminisllative law judge detennined that based on the circumstances, the officer acted reasonably in response to an imminent thrcst. Disciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with procedures soveming the disciplinuy process becauae the employee relations officer failed to notify the OIG of the Skelly hearing. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Inaufficient Sufficient Anes1ment Questions o Did the dep.n-nt attnmey or employee relatlo11.1 of&er cooperate with and provide eoatlnul real-time CODIJlltation with the OIG thro11gha11t the dbclpllnuy phue? Th4 employee relations offsctJr failed to notify the OIG of the Skelly hearing. prevet~tillg the OIGf rom monitoring the hearing. Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-10-29 16-0000326-IR L Diabonesty L Suatained Dismissal Dismissal 2. Neglect ofD uty 2. Suatained Case Type: AdminiBU8tive Investiption Incident Suaunary On October 29, 2015, a lieutenantallegecDy failed to fullow the department's report clarification request procedures and wrote a report for an officer without the officer's knowledge. Case Disp01ition The hiring authority sustained the allegations and served the lieutenant with a notice ofd ismissal. The OIG concurred. However, the lieutenant resigned befure the disciplinuy action took effi:cl The hiring authority placed a letter in the lieutenant's official personnel file indicating that he resigned pending disciplinuy action. Di1cipllnary Anessment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufliciellt I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 193 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Cate Number AUegations Flndlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-11-21 16-0000392-IR 1. Failure to Report 1. Suataimed S&laty Reduction S&laty Recb:tion 2. Neglect ofD uty 2. Suataimed 3. Discourteous Treatment 3. Suatained 4. Dishonesty 4. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminiatnltive Investigation Incident Suaunary On November 21, 2015, a lieutenant and sergeant allegedly fililed to adequately investipte an inmate's alleged indecent exposure to an officer. The lieutenant also allegedly fililed to report the indecent exposure and made deroptory comments to another officer regarding the incident On November 23, 2015, the lieutenant allegedly fillsely told another lieutenant he was unawve oft he incident Case Disposition The hiring authority suatained the alleption against the sergeant and issued a letter ofinstruetion. The hiring authority also suatained the allegations against the lieutenant, except for dishonesty, and imposed a 10 peroent salary recb:tion for 12 months and removed his right to bid for positions. The OIG ooncurred with the hiring autbority's determinations except for the decision to not auatain the dishonesty alleption as to the lieutenant The OIG did not seek a higher level ofr eview bllCIIWIC the hiring authority's intelpretation of the evidelll.le was also reasonable. The lieutenant filed an appeal with the State Penonnel Board. Prior to the State Penonne1 Board proceedings, the department entered into a settlement agreement maintaining the salary reduction but returning the lieutenanfs right to bid fur positions. The OIG did not ooncur with the settlement becauae there MOre no changed cin:umstsnces supporting the settlement HoMVer, the settlement terms did not merit a higher level ofr eview because the ssluy reduction remained the same and wu within the appropriate range for the miaeoncb:l Dbciplinary Anessment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process because the hiring authority did not auatain dishonesty or select the appropriate penalty, and settled the case without sufficient juatification. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Insufficient Inaufticient Anes1ment Questions o Did the HA who partidpmd In the dilclpllnuy confereDCe Hleet the appropriate Employee Dlxlpllnary Malrli ehuge1 uut eaa~a for dilclpllne? Tlr4 hiring authority did not sustmn dishonesty despit4 evidenc4 supponing the alkgatkm. o Did the HA who partidpmd In the dilclpllnuy confereDCe Hleet the appropriate penalty? Tlr4 hiring authority did not impose the properp enalty of dismissal because the hiring authority faj/ed to sustain dishonesty, which the evidence supported. o H then wu a ~eUiemeut qnemeut, wu the HU!emeut coomteut wtth the DOM faetDn? Tlr4 tkpartment did not identifY any new evidence, flaws, or risks justifYing the sdtlement. o H the peDalty wu -dlfled by departmeut actinD or a HU!emeut qreemeut, did OIG coocur wtth the modlfkatlou? Tlr4 OIG did not concur with the modification because the tkpartment did not identifY any new evidence, flaws, or risks justifYing the settt-ent. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 194 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2015-12-15 16-000 1981-IR 1. AJaault 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 2.Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On December 15, 2015, a youth co\lllllelor allegedly slapped his wffi: and threw fuod in her lilce, reaulting in his amat fur domestic violence. Case Dbpo1ition The hiring authority sustained the allegations and imposed a 10 percent salary reduction for three months. The OIG concurred The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Boud but later withdrew the appeal. DiscipUnary Aneument The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Plveedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sut'licient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2015-12-18 16.000055~IR 1. Nepect ofD uty 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Letter ofReprimand 2. Discourteous Treatment 2. Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Summary On December 18, 2015, a youth co\lllllelor, in front ofwuds and officers, allegedly called a ward a derogatory tenn fur those who report misconduct. Case Dispo1ition The hiring authority sustained the allegation and imposed a 5 penlCnt salary reduction fur 12 months. The OIG concurred. The youth cOIIIUielor filed an appeal with the State PCiliOnnel Board Following a hearing where the department attorney adequately represented the department, the State Pen~onnel Boanl modified the penalty to a letter ofr eprimand. The administmtive law judse made a credibility determination and ruled the evidence insufficient to counter the youth coiiiUielol's version ofe vwts. DiscipUnary Aneument The department did not comply with procedures governing the disciplinaly process because the department attorney was not adequately prepared at the pn>-hearing seUlement conference. Plveedural Rating Subltantive Rating Insuftk:ient Sut'licient A1ses1ment Questions • Did the departmeut'1 adwcate wllo ~eared at the pre-hearlllg lettle:meut confenuee have full ~eUiemeut authority or the ability 1D obtaiD authority Immediately by telephoue? Dt!3pite the OIG's recommendation, the department attorney did 11ot malrie prior arra11gemetrts with the hiri11g authority to discU33 settl-optiolls or to obtain authority immediately by teleph011e. At the heari11g. the department attonrey did 110t have the hiring authority's colltact in.(ormati011 a~~d, therefore, was tmable to promptly cOIItact the hiring authority. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 195 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegation• Ftndlngs Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-02-05 16-0000922-IR L Unreucmable Use ofForce 1. Sustained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Diahoneaty 2. Not Suatained 3. NeglectofDuty 3. Not Suatained Case Type: Adminililt8tive Inveatiption Incident Sullllllary On February 5, 2016, an officer allegedly improperly deployed pepper spmy on an inmate to prevent disposal of oontrab811d. The officer submitted a report repnling the incident 8lld allegedly replaced the report with a false report tojuatify his use of force. On February 6, 2016, a sergeant allegedly assisted the officer with writing the false report 8lld fililed to follow the properproceas for obtaining clarification. On February 11,2016, the officer allegedly wrote a rules violation report based on the false report811d on Man:h 5, 2016, allegedly provided false testimony at the rules violation bearing. Case Dbpo1ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegation the officer uaed unreasonable force, but not the other allegations, 8lld imposed a 5 percentsalary reduction for six months. The hiring authority found insufficient evidence to suatain the allegations against the sergeant Tbe OIG concurred with the hiring authority's detenninations. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies 8lld procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating Sllfficicnt Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Caae Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-02-06 16-0002029-IR L Sualained Suspension Salary Reduction L Misuse of Authority 2. Sualained 2. Improper Access to Confidential Infonnation Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllary Between February 6, 2016, 8lld September 4, 2016, an officer allegedly inappropriately accessed the confidential records ofa n inmate, his girlfriend's ex-huab811d, sewn times. On September 29, 2016, the officer allegedly contacted another institution 8lld requested that mailroom atsffinten:ept 8lld alter a letter he had mailed to the inmate. Case Dbpo1ition Tbe hiring authority sustained the allegations 8lld imposed a 15-working-ilay auapenaion. Tbe OIG concurred Prior to the Sfoelly bearing, the department entered into a settlement agreement with the officer reducing the penalty to a 10 percent salary reduction for seven months. The OIG did not concur because then: wen: no changed circumstances warranting the modification. However, the settlement terms did not merit a higher level ofr eview because the modified penalty was within the appropriate range for the misconduct. Disciplinary Anessment Tbe department sufficiently complied with policies 8lld procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substanti-ve Rating Sllfficicnt Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 196 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016~-15 16-0001779-IR L Neglect ofD uty 1. Suataimed Salary Reduction Saluy Reduction Case Type: Direct Action with Subject-Only Interview Incident Sullllllary On May 15, 2016, an oflioer allegedly curied a concealed weapon while off duty without being qualified to carry it and pointed it at another penon. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority suatained the allegations and imposed a 10 peroent saluy reduction for six months. The OIG ooncurred. The officer filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board which be later withdrew. DbcipUnary Ane11ment Tbe department sufficiently romplied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Incidmt Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findinp Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016..()6.04 16-0001814-IR L Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Suataimed Saluy Reduction Salary Reduction Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sullllllary On June 4, 2016, an oflioer was arrested atter be allegedly shoved his wife into a wall, grabbed ber arms, and puabed ber. Case Disposition Tbe hiring authority suatained the allegation and imposed a 10 percent saluy reduction fur 20 months. Tbe OIG concurred Tbe oflioerdid not file an appeal with the State Pemonnel Boanl. DbcipUnary Ane11ment Ovcnll, the department sufliciendy complied with policies and procedures governing the disciplinary process. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 197 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number AUegations Finding• Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-07-18 16-0001888-IR 1. Dishonesty 1. Sustained Dismiasal Resipation in Lieu ofTennination 2. Controlled SubstanQC'.S 2.Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On July 18, 2016, a youth counaelor allesedly tested positive fur cocaine. On July 25, 2016, the youth counaelor allegecDy fillsely claimed to outside law enfuroement that an unlmown pen10n pve him a cipr to smote and be allegecDy did not know it contained a controlled substance. Case Dispotition Tbe hiring authority sustained the alleptions and dismiased the youth counselor. The OIG concumd The youth counselor filed an appeal with the State Personnel Board. Prior to Stale Personnel Boud proceedings, the department entered into a settlement apement wb=in the youth counselor resigned in lieu of diBmissal and aped to never seek employment with the department in the fulun:. Tbe OIG concl!mld because the ultimate goal ofe nsuring the youth counselor did not work for the department was acbieved. Disciplinary Aneument Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedurea sovcrning tbe diBciplinaly prooeaa. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Incident Date OIG Case Number Allegations Findings Initial Penalty Ftnal Penalty 2016-07-27 16-0001894-IR 1. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 1. Sustained Suspension SUBpension Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident Sununary On July 27, 2016, an officer allegecDy grabbed bia fiancee by tbe neck and threw ber down, resulting in an out-<:~f-11tate conviction on October 27,2016, fur domestic violence. Case Dispotition Tbe hiring authority sustained the alleptions and imposed a 48-working-day suspension. Tbe OIG collCIIII'ed because tbe department also issued a non-punitive tennination due to tbe conviction. Tbe officer filed an appeal with tbe State Personnel Board. Prior to the State Personnel Board proceedings, tbe officer withdrew bia appeal. Disciplinary Aneument Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and prooedurea sovcrning tbe diBciplinaly prooeaa. Procedural Rating Subatantiw Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 198 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Allegation• Findlnp Initial Penalty Final Penalty 2016-®-09 16-0001984-IR L Nepect ofD uty L Suatained Salary Reduction Salary Reduction 2. Other Failure ofG ood Behavior 2. Not Sustained Case Type: Direct Action (No Subject Interview) Incident SullliUry On September 9, 2016, outside law enforcement arrested an officer afler he &llesedly usaulted hill wffi:, and allegedly fililed to notify the department of hill arresl Case Dispotition The hiring authority sustained the allegation the officer fililed to notify the department ofhia arrest, but not that he 18118ulted hia wffi:, and imposed aS percent saluy reduction for 12 months. The OIG COII(lurred. The officer did not file an appeal with the State Personnel Boani DbcipUnary Ane11ment Ovcnll, the department sufficiently complied with policiea and procedures governing the disciplinuy process. Procedural Rating Subttantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 199 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA AppendixC 16 Investigative Phase Cases Central Incident Date OIG Case Number Case 'I)'pe Allegations 2012-12-29 17-0022746-IR Criminal Inwatigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Suaunary Between December 29, 2012, and AuBWit 16, 2014, an officer &llesedly threatened, intimidated an inmate, and touched the inmate's buttocb and lm:uts. The Office ofI nternal Aflilirs QOillb:ted an investigation, which fililed to establish sufficient evidence for a probable CIIWie rcfenal to the district attorney. The OIG concwred with the probable CIIWie detennination. The Office ofI nternal Aflilirs did not open an administrative inwatigation due to lack ofe vidence and because the officer retired from the departmenl The hiring authority placed a letter in the officer's official personnel file indicating he retired under unfilvonlble cin:umstanees. Procedural Rating Subttantiw Rating IDaufficient Sufficient I Investigative Anetsment The department did not comply with procedures governing the inwatigative process because the special agent inappropriately included administrative allegations in the criminal investigative reporl Anettment Questions o Wu the lnvatlgative dnft report pnYided tu the OIG for re\'lew thorough aad ~pnprlately drafted? Tlr4 investigative draft rtfJOI1 contaiMd administrative a/JegatiOIIS in a criminal illves#gatkm report. o Wu the final lnvatlgative report tlloroagh aad ~pnprlately dnfted? Tlr4jillal criminal repon contain&~ the same inappropriate administrative allegations present ill the draft report despite the OIG's recommendatiom to remove the administrative alkgatio113. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 200 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Ca1e 'I)'pe Allegation• 2016-02-05 16-0001469-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary Between Februaty 5, 2016, and Februaty 26, 2016, an officer allegedly conspired with inmates to bring mobile pbones and drup into the institution. The Office of Internal Aflilirs conducted an investigation and fuund sufficient evidence fur a probable cause refbral to the district attorney. The OIG concumxl with the probable cause detennination. The officer resigned befure the Office of Internal Aflililll completed the investigation. Therefure, the Office ofintenW Aflililll did not open an administrative investigation. The hiring authority placed a letter in the officet's official personnel file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating Inauflicient Insufficient I Inveatigatlve As~asment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process because the hiring autbority did not timely refer the matter to the Office ofintenW Aflililll, and the special agent did not adequately prepare fur all aspects oft he investigation, adequately cooperste with the OIG, or complete the investigation in a timely manner, and the deadline for filing misdemeanor criminsl cha!Jea ellpired befure the Office of Internal Aflililll completed the investigation. At1e11ment Questions o Wu die matter ~ferred to the Ofllee of IDternal Affidrl wldllo 45 ealcDdar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on Man:h 2, 2016, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to the Office oflntenlal Affain Ulltil April20, 2016, 49 days after the date ofd iscovery. o Did die ~peclalage:nt adequmly prep~ for all a~peca of the illvatlgatlou? Tlr4 special agem began the investigation and drafted a sean:h wam111t affidavit without blowing the inves#gative servias Ullit already conduct&/ e:densive illves#ga#ve activiti&f, including serving a s8tlTCh warrant. The special agent al3o did not use depaTtmentol1'tf30urces to identifY inmate visitors and rekltives sending money to the officer's account and 1flfused to inves#gate the sources as suspects Ulltil the OIG recommenlkd doing both activiti&f. o Did die departmeut complete IU illvatlgatilm wldlill m moutlul of the dm of dt.covery of the alleged mbcouduct? Tlr4 lkparlltletlt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on Man:h 2, 2016, but the Offke ofI nternal Affairs did not complete its inves#ga#on Ulltil April25, 2017, mo1ft than thirteen manths thereafter. o Did die deadlille for taldllg dbciplillary actiou or fll.illg charge• aplre before die illvatlgatlon wu completed? Tlr4 lkadlineforf iling mis!kmeafiOT charges o;pi1fld 54 days be/01fl the Office oflntenlal Affain complet&i its illves#gation. The district atkJTfley's officejil«<felony charges. o Did die ~peclalage:nt cooperm wl1h a1ld pnmde coutillual real-time counltltiou wl1h die OIG? Tlr4 special agenl initially said he did not c= about OIG 1ftcommendatiom and only cooperat&i after his supervison di1ftct&i him to do so. The special agent told the hiring authority the OIG was delaying the illves#ga#on whm, in fact, the special agent caused the delay. Tlr4 special agenl ~charge 1flfused to provide a copy oft he court-issU«< warrant despite legal authority granting the OIG access to the waTTallt o Did die departmeut couduct die pre-dbclplillary/luvertlgative phue wl1h due dlllgeuce? Tlr4 lklays a1ft address«/ in p..Wr questiom. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 201 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Ca1e 'I)'pe AUegations 2016-05-01 16-0001881-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act Incident Suaunary Between May 1, 2016, and Ausust 1, 2016, an officer allegedly engaged in a sCXWil relationship with an inmate. 1be officer also allegedly conspired with and received bribes from an inmate to introduce mobile pbones, heroin, and methsmphetsmine into the institution. The Office of Internal Aflitirs conducted an investiption and fulllld sufficient evidence fur a probable cause refetql to the district attorney. The OIG collCIUred with the probable cause detennination. The Office ofI nternal Aflitirs also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted fur monitoring. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient I Inveatigative Asaenmmt The department did not comply with procedures governing the pre-disciplinsly process becaw!C the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office of Internal Aflitirs. Anes1ment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln within 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on June 8, 1016, but the hiring authority did not "!fer the matter to the OffiCe ofl1114n1lll Affain Ulltil August 11, 1016, 64 days after the date ofd iscovery. o Wu the lnvatlgative draft report pro\'lded to the OIG for re\'lew thorough and appropriately drafted? Tlr4 invt!3tigrltive draft Tt!J'OTt did not include summarit!3 oft ext mti33Qgt!3 sent to andf rom the officer's phone reganling the inmate. o Did the department complm ltllnvatlgatlon within six monlhl of the date of dbeovery of the alleged mfaeondact? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on June 8, 1016, but the Office ofI ntemal Affairs did not complete its inves#gation Ulltil Jat1114ry 10, 1017, mom than sevet~ months after the date ofd iscovery. o Did the department conduct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvellllgative phue with dae dJUcenc:e? Tlr4 delay is addrt!3sed in a prior question. Incident Date OIG Case Numbft" Case 'I)'pe Allegationt 2016-05-01 16-0001968-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Suaunary Between May 1, 2016, and Ausust 1, 2016, an officer allegedly engaged in a sCXWil relationship with an inmate, conspired with the inmate to introduce contraband into the institution, introduced mobile phones and marijuana into the institution, and released confidential infOrmation "'garding another inmate to the fust inmate. A second officer allegedly conspired with the first officer to release the confidential information. The Office of Internal Aflitirs conducted an investigation, which fililed to establish sufficient evidence fur a probable cause "'ferral to the district attorney. The OIG concwred with the probable cause determinstion. The Office oflntemsl Aflilin opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted fur monitoring. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Inauflicient Sufficient I Inveatigative As~essmmt The department did not comply with procedures governing the investiptive process because the hiring authority did not timely "'fer the matter to the Office oflntemsl Aflilin. Anestment Questions o Wu the matter referred to the Offiee of IDternal Affaln within 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dbcovery? Tlr4 departmellt kam4d oft he alleged misconduct on July 15, 101 6, but the hiring authority did not "!fer the matter to the Office ofI nternal Affain until SqJtember 16, 1016, 53 days after the date ofd iscovery. o Did the departmeut conduct the pre-dbclpllnary/lnvellllgative phue with dae dJUcenc:e? Tlr4 delay is addrt!3sed in a prior question. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 202 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA North Incident Date OIG Case Numbft" Cate'fYpe Allegadont 2014-01-01 15-0001652-IR Criminal Inwatigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary From January 1, 2014, throush December 3, 2014, a cbaplain allegedly OODBpired with and accepted bribes from warda and tbeir fiunily membeni tc SIDUQie meb ile pbones intc the filcility. From July 9, 2015, through Februaly 28, 2016, a &eiJeant allegedly accepted bnlles from and conspin:d with wards and their fiunily membem tc smlllsJe marijuana, mobile phones, and cha!Jem intc the filcility. From July 9, 2015, throush Februaly 28, 2016, a youth oounaelor allegedly conspired with the SCIJCanl fur the same purposes. The Office ofI nternal Aflilim conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence fur a probable cause referral tc the diBtrict attorney. The OIG conwrred with the probable cause determination. The Office ofI nternal Aflilim also opened an administmtive investigation, wbich the OIG accepted fur monitoring. Procedural Rating Subltandw Radng Inauflicient InJufl'icient I lnwttigadw Astenmmt The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process because the Office oflntemal Aflililll did not complete the inwatigation prior tc the deadline fur filing misdemeanor cha!Jes. Anet1ment Questions • Did the deadline for Wdag dbc:lpi.IDuy action or flliDg charge• ~Ire before the iavatlptlon wu completed? Th4 Offic4 oflntemal Affairs did Mt compkte the inVQtigalioll Ulltil February 10, 2017, after the deadline to file mistlemtJfJIIor charges for o.ffet13t!3 ocCUlTing from JaiiUIJI')I 1, 20U, through February 9, 2016. The district aliomey's off~ee declined to fsle charges. a Did the department eond11et the pre-dbclplinary/lnvelltf&ative phue with dDe dlll&enee? Th4 delay is addrt!3sed in a prior queslio11. Incident Date OIG Case Numbft" Cate'fYpe Allegations 2015-11-15 16-0001899-IR Criminal Inwatigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary Between November 15, 2015, and Au~W~t 15, 2016, an officer allegedly OODBpired with and received bribes from an inmate tc introduce meb ile pbones, marijuana, and methamphetamine intc an institution. The Office oflntemal Aflililll conducted an inwatigation, wbich fililed to establish sufficient evidence fur a probable cauae refcnal tc the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The Office oflntemal Aflililll also opened an administmtive inwatigation, wbich the OIG accepted for mcnitoring. Procedural Radng Subltantiw Radng Sufficient Sufficient I lnwttigadw Astetsmmt Overall, the department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the investigative process. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY -JUNE 2017 Page 203 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Ca1e 'I)'pe AUegations 2015-11-28 16-0001774-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act Incident Suaunary Between November 28, 2015, and Febnwy 29, 2016, an officer's wife allegedly possessed an illegal hallucinogenic drug. On Febnwy 29, 2016, the wire allegedly placed the drug in the officer's drink, and the officer unlrnowinpy drank il The Office of Internal Aflilirs conducted an investiption and fulllld insufficient evidence fur a probable cause reftlrral to the district attorney for the cue against the officer, but folllld sufficient evidence fur a probable cause reftlrral oft he case against the officer's wife. The OIG co~~C~Ured with the probable cause detenninstions. The district attorney's office declined to prosecute the case against the officer's wire. The Office ofI nternal Aflilirs also opened an administrative investiption, which the OIG accepted for monitoring. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallflicient Inaufficient I Investigative Annsm.ent The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the investiptive process. The Office ofI nternal Aflilirs opened a criminal investiption on a person not employed by the department and which involved alleged conduct which did not occur on department grollllda or properly, thereby constituting a waste of reaounx:a. The special agent did not inform outside law enfOrcement ofs urveillance activities, made inaccwate entries in the cue management system, and fililed to adequately consult with the OIG. Annsment Quntions o Did the Ofllee of lutem al Afraln DUke m appropriate illilial determillatiou regudillg the cue? Th4 Offic4 ofI nternal Affairs decid«< to conduct a criminal investigation 1flgrurling the officu's wife, a person not employed by the dqJartment 1flgardillg an alkg«< action sh4 engag«< ill which did not tok4 plllce on department grounds or property. The Offsce oflnternal Affairs should have 1fljerred th4 matter regarding th4 ojficer's wife to outside lllw mjOTCemmt. o Did the ~peclal ageut adequately prepare for all &~peeD of the illvatlgatlou? Th4 speciol agent did not notify outside lllw enforcement when conducting surv8illance oft h4 officer's home. o Did the ~peclal ageut appropriately euter cue activity ill the cue mmagemeut l)'lfem? Th4 speciol agent entered inaccurate ond misleading stoteme11ts ill th4 case management system 1flgrurling cofiSUltatkms willl th4 OIG. o Did the departmeut complete lb IDvatlgatloD 'lrithiD idx moutlul of the date of dbcovery of the alleged mixoDdDCt? Th4 department karned oft he alleg«< misconduct on March 25, 2016, but the Offsce ofI nternal Affairs did not complete its mvestigation until January 10, 2017, m01fl than six months thereafter. o Did the ~peclal ageut cooperate 'lrith aDd provide eoutiDD&l real-time CODIJlltatiOD 'lrith the OIG? Th4 speciol agent collllucted surv8illance ofth4 officer's home ond a-pted to mtervtew th4 oj]ker's wife without providing sufficient notice to th4 OIG, preventing real-time monitoring. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 204 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Ca1e 'I)'pe Allegation• 2016-03-28 16-0001896-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary Between March 28, 2016, and April 8, 2016, an oflioer allegedly cCliDIIIUIIicated with an inmate wbo poue~~~ed a mobile pbone and allowed the inmate to toudl her buttocks throush her clothing. The Office ofI nternal Affilinl conducted an inveatigation and round sufficient evidence fur a probable cause n*nal to the district attorney. The OIG concum:d with the probable cause detennination. The district attorney's office declined prosecution. The Office of Internal Affilirs also opened an administrative inveatigation, which the OIG accepted fur monitoring. Procedural Rating Subltantlve Rating IDallffic:ient Sufficient I Inveatlgatlve Asaenment The depsrtment did not comply with procedures soverning the investigative prooeas because the hiring authority did not timely rerer the matter to the Office ofinternal Affilirs. The special agent did not include a summary ofc ritical evidence in the dqft investigative report. Aneatment Queatlons o Wu tile matRr referred to the Offlee of IDternal Affaln wltllln 45 calendar da)'ll of the date of dixovery? Th4 tkpartment kam4d of the alleged misconduct 011 June 18, 101 6, but the hiring authority did not refer the matter to th4 Offic4 ofl ntemal Affairs until August 1 7, 1016, 60 days ajW th4 date of discovery. o Wu tile lnvatlgative dnft report provided to tile OIG for review tlloroagh and appropriately drafted? Th4 illvt!3tigative draft 7t!p0Tt did not illclutk copies of text mt!3sagt!3 from the mobile phone. o Did tile dep.m.nt eomplete Its lnvatlgatlon wltllln idx montlls of the date of dbeovery of the alleged maeondaet? Th4 tkpartment kam4d of the alleged misconduct 011 June 18, 101 6, but the OffiCe ofI nternal Affairs did not refer th4 matter to the district attoi"My's office until January 30, 2017, more than seven months thereafter. o Did tile dep.m.nt eondact tile pre-dixlpllnary/IDvelltlgative phue wltll dae d111genc:e? Th4 tklay is addrt!3sed ill a prior questton. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 205 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Ca1e 'I)'pe AUegations 2016-05-05 16-0001948-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act Incident Suaunary From May 5, 2016, to Ausuat 29, 2016, an officer allegedly conspired with inmates to introduce mobile phones and tobacco into the inatitution. The Office ofintemal Aflilin conducted an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause reftm'al to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause detennination. The officer resigned before the Office of Internal Aflililll completed the investigation. The hiring aulhorityplaced a letter in the officet's official pCISOnnel file indicating he resigned under adverse circumstances. The Office ofintemal Aflililll did not open an administmive investigation because the officer resigned. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallflicient Inaufficient I Investigative Annsm.ent The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the investigative process because the Office oflntemal Aflilin did not condud a thorough investigation and submitted an incomplete investigative report to the district attorney's office, thereby compromising the value of evidence seized and ability to determine the extent of criminal activities. Special asenta also did not adequately conault with the OIG, enter critical information in the case manasement system, or timely file a search wanurt return. At~easment Quntions o Did the ~pedal ageut appropriately enter cue activity iD the cue management l)'rtem? Special agents faikd to enter into the case management S)l3tem the names ofp eTSQIIS interviewed during the execution oft wo s8tlTCh WQITants and neglected to describe personal property seiud. o Wu the lnvatlgative dnft report provided to the OIG for re\'lew thorough and appropriately drafted? Because the Offsce oflnternal Affairs neglect«/ to 0011duct a thoroughformsic analysis of evidence seiud, the investigative draft report did not include any such 1UU/ts. The draft report also failed to include a summary of a critical witness interview and a compkt« witrress list. o Wu the flnallnvatlgative report thorough and appropriately dnfted? Because the Offsce oflnternalAffairs neglect«/ to 0011duct a thoroughformsic analysis of evidence seiud, the final investigative report did not include any such 1ff3ull3. o Did the ~pedal ageut cooperate with and provide continual real-time coniDitation with the OIG? The special agent rep«Jt«dly fmkd to provide draft copies ofs8tlTCh WQITants for the OIG to review priOI' to submission to the district attorney's ojftc4. 171e special agent also failed to timely notify the OIG of the date and time oft he officu's interview. o Wu the lnvatlgation thorough and appropriately coadaeted? The Offtc4 ofh ltemal Affairs neglected to havef orensic analyses peiformed on two computers, two penonal computen, and 13 mobile pho71e3 seized during the investigation. 171erqore, the evidentiary Wllue oft he evidence seiud could not be det«rmined and the ext67lt ofc riminal activities remained undetected. o Did the department coaduct the pre-dbclplinary/lnvelligative phue with dae diligence? The Offtc4 ofh ltemal Affairs delayed filing one search wammt retunJ with the court until three months after execution of the wam111L Incident Date OIG Case Number Cate 'I)'pe AUegations 2016-06-01 16-0002032-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act Incident SullliUry Between June 1, 2016, and September 20, 2016, an office technician allegedly engaged in a sexual relationship with an inmate. Between June 1, 2016, and January 12, 2017, the office technician allegedly exchanged letteiS and phone calla with the inmate. The Office ofintemal AfliliiS conduded an investigation and found sufficient evidence for a probable cause reftm'al to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determination. The district attorney's office filed chuJes against the office technician. The Office ofintemal Aflilin also opened an adminislnltive investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring. Procedural Rating Substantive Rating IDallflicient Sufficient I Investigative A11e11m.ent The department did not comply with procedures soverning the investigative process because the special asent did not adequately update the case management system. At1e11ment Quntions o Did the ~pedal ageut appropriately enter cue activity iD the cue management l)'rtem? The special agent did not add new allegations discovered during the course oft he investigation in the case management S)l3tem. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 206 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Ca1e Number Ca1e 'I)'pe AUegations 2016-06-07 16-0001777-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Criminal Act Incident Suaunary On June 7, 2016, an officer allegedly conapired with inmatea to introduce contrabllld Uld introduced a mobile phone subscriber identification cud into the institution. The Office of Internal Aflilin conducted an investigation Uld found sufficient evidence for a probable caWIC reftm'al to the district attorney's office. The OIG concurred. Tbe Office ofI nternal Af!iJiiS also opened an administrative investigation, which the OIG accepted for monitoring. Plveedural Rating Substantive Rating Sufficient lnJufl'icient I Investigative Asaenmmt Tbe department's handling of the investigative process was substantively insufficient becaWIC the special agent did not conduct the investigation in a timely manner, thereby jeopardizing the Slft:ty and security of the institution. The draft investigative report did not include a second witness interview. Anestment Questions o Wu the lnvatlgative dnft report pnYided 111 the OIG for re\'lew thorough aad appnprlately drafted? 1'114 draft report did not include the i11111llte's 3ecolld illlerview the 3peciol agent 0011ducted. • Did the department complete IU lnvatlgatlnn within m moatlul of the date of dbcovery of the alleged mix>oadact? 1'114 department learned of the alkged mi3c011ducl on .Iuiie 7, 2016, but did not complete the i11vestigotio11 ulllil February 6, 2017, almo3t eight month3later. • Did the department coadact the pre-dbelpllnary/lnvelltlgative phue with dae diligence? Despite the OIG's repetJted recommendoti0113 to illtenliew the officer and timely complete the investigatioll, the 3peciol agent delayed Olld at one poi114 infetlded to clo.se the investigation willrout attempting to interview the offscer. Durillg the delay, the offiCtJI' continued to worlr:neor inmates alld Wll3 captured on a llisual recanting 3uspiciously handing an object to an inmate. Only after thi3 iliformation Wll3 provided to the Office ofI nternal Affair3 did the 3pecial agent attempt to interview the officer. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 207 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA South Incident Date OIG Case Number Ca1etype Allegations 2015-12-01 16-0000824-IR Criminal Inwatigation 1. Criminal Act Incident Sullllllllry From DeQCIIlber 1, 2015, to March 11, 2016, an offioer allegedly smuggled mobile phones Uld aloohol into tbe institution. The inwstigation failed to establliih sufficient evidenoe for a probable cause n*nal to tbe district attomey. The OIG ooncum:d with tbe probable cause determination. The Oflioe of Internal Affilirs also opened an adminisllatiw inwatigation, which tbe OIG acoepted for monitoring. Procedural Rating Subttantive Radng Insufficient lnJufficient I Investigative Asse~sment The department did not comply with policies and procedures governing the investigatiw prooess because tbe hiring authority did not timely refer tbe matter to the Oflioe of Internal Affilin. The Office oflntemal Affilirs did not adequately oonduct the investigation or cooperate with tbe OIG and did not oomplete tbe inwatigation until after the de&dline for filing misdemeanor cqes expired. Anes1ment Questions • Wu die matter referred to the Ofllee of Internal Affalrl wlthiD 45 ealcndar da)'11 of the dm of dbcovery? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on December 1, 2015, but the hiring authority did not rr;fer the matter to the 0f.1ia ofI nternal Affair3 ulltil March 11, 2016, 101 days after the date of discovery. • Did die dep.n-nt eomplm lb Invatlgatlon wldlln idx montlul of the dm of dboovery of the alleged maeondlld? Th4 tkpartmenl karMd of the alleg«J misconduct on December 1, 2015, but did not complete the iiiVtJStigation until December 22, 2016, more than one year after the date of discovery. • Did die deadline for taldng dbcipllnuy action or filing cllarge1 aplre before die Invatlgatlon wu completed? Th4 tkadlineforf iling mistkmeaiiOT charges was D8Cember 1, 2016, but the Offsce ofI nternal Affair3 did not complete the illvcstigation untilD8Cember 22, 2016, 21 days after the tkadlille. • Did die ~peclalagent cooperm wl1h and pnmde eontlnaal real-time conn.ltation wl1h die OIG? Th4 special agent did not consuls with the OIG bqorr; attempting to have a judge sign a search waTTant. a Wu die Invatlgatlon thoro11gh and appropriately eondllcted? During a large-scale search operation ill administrative segregation, special agents allow«/ inmates SUSp8Cted ofp ossessing relevant evidence and contraband to kave their cells when they wanted, p<Wr to conducting the search. Due to eJCisting tkpartmenlal policy restricting forced cell entrie3, the Sp8Cial agents stood outside the cells and watch«/ the inmates destroy potential evidence without any <iffort to enter the cells, ruultillg ill potential loss of evitknce. • Did die dep.n-nt eond11ct die pre-dbclp1lnuyllnveltlgative phue wl1h du d111gence? Th4 tklays arr; address«/ ill prior questioNI. Incident Date OIG Case Numbft" Case type Allegadont 2016-04-13 16-0001234-IR Criminal Inwatigation 1. Otber Criminal Act Incident Sullllllllry On Apri113, 2016, an offioer allegedly received bnlles Uld inlnlduced narootics and mobile phones into the institution. Between May 1, 2016, Uld May 10, 2016, the officer allegedly communicated and oonspired with inmates, inmate fiu:nilies, Uld inmate fiiends to smuggle narootics and mobile phones into the institution. The Oflioe ofI nternal Affilirs conducted an inwstigation Uld found sufficient evidence for a probable cause n*nal to tbe district attomey. The OIG concum:d with tbe probable cause determination. The Oflioe of Internal Affilin also opened an adminisllatiw inwstigation, which the OIG acoepted for monitoring. Procedural Radng Subttantive Radng Sufficient Sufficient I Investigative Asse~sment The department sufficiently complied with policies and procedures governing the investigstiw prooess. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 208 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA Incident Date OIG Case Number Ca1e 'I)'pe Allegation• 2016-06-20 16-0001767-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary On June 20, 2016, an oflioer allesedJy IXlllllllunicated with an inmate by mobile pbone and had an unautborized knife at the institution. The Office oflntem81 Aflitilll oonducted an investigation and found sufficient evidenoe fur a probable cause referral to the district attorney. The OIG concurred with the probable cause determinstion. The Oflioe ofinternsl Affilim did not open an adminiBlllltiw investigation because the officer resigned from the department. The hiring authority plaoed a letter in the officer's officW pemonnel file indicating she resigned under unfavotable circumstances. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Sufficient I Inveatigative Asaeummt The department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the investigatiw prooess. Incident Date OIG Case Number Ca1e 'I)'pe Allegation• 2016-07-20 16-0001885-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary On July 20, 2016, a sergeant and two offioem allesedJy struck an inmate with batons, a thUd and fuurth officer allegedly used pepper spray on the inmate, and a fifth officer allegedly discbalged a less-lethal round at the inmate. The fimt se..,ant, a seoond se..,ant, and the fuurth oflioer allegedly physically f0111ht with the inmate, causing the inmate to suffer laoellltions and broten bones. The inmate allegedly did not present a threat thstjuatified the uae offuroe. The fimt and second SerJeant& and the fuurth officer allegedly conspired to write false reports and the filllt serJeant also allegedly attempted to dissuade a nurse from providing truthful infurmstion regarding the incident. A captain, a lieutenant, the two se,.,..nts and a third sergeant, the nurse, and the five officem and fiw additional oflicem allegedly wrote lillse reports regarding the incident The Oflioe ofinternal Affilim conducted an investigation and fuund sufficient evidenoe for a probable csuae referral to the district attorney. The OIG concwred with the probable cause determination. The Oflioe ofinternal Aflitilll also opened an adminislllltiw inwstigation, which the OIG aooepted fur monitoring. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Suffieient I Inveatigative Asaeummt The department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the investigatiw prooess. Incident Date OIG Case Number Case 'I)'pe Allegationt 2016-09-24 16-0002008-IR Criminal Investigation 1. Other Criminal Act Incident Summary On September 24, 2016, an officer allegedly possessed a lmifi: and brandished it in a threatening manner toward inmates. The Oflioe of Internal Affililll conducted an inwstigation and fuund sufficient evidence fur a probable cause reft:nal to the district attorney. The OIG ooncurred with the probable cause determination. The Oflioe of Internal Aflitilll also opened an adminiBlllltiw esse, which the OIG aooepted fur monitoring. Procedural Rating Subltantive Rating Sufficient Suffieient I Inveatigative Asae11mmt The department sufficiently oomplied with policies and procedures governing the investigatiw prooess. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT VOLUME I JANUARY- JUNE 2017 Page 209 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT January-June 2017 Volume I OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA August 2017