City Manager*

R1

– The Napa Police Department explain the reason(s) the Administrative Investigation Report of the OIS of November 28, 2010, is delinquent, and release the report Response - This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and not reasonable. No report is "delinquent" by any standard. The Grand Jury's use of the term "delinquent" suggests that the NPD had an obligation to make public the results of its internal personnel investigation, and to do so within some unidentified time frame. Instead, and as stated above, the NPD's internal investigation of officers' conduct as it relates to this and similar incidents is subject to the officers' privacy rights under state law. As an effort to keep the public informed, the department does provide general information about incidents, such as Meek Avenue, through press releases and will utilize liaison officers to contact those members of the community who are immediately affected by an incident, as indicated in the City's response to recommendation 6.

R2

- The Napa Police Department publish future Administrative Investigation Reports of the incidents giving rise to them. Response - This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and not reasonable. As set forth above, internal investigations of police officer performance is private and confidential, and may not be released under California law. As stated in recommendation number one, the department does provide general information about incidents, such as Meek Avenue, through press releases and will utilize liaison officers to contact those members of the community who are immediately affected by an incident, as indicated in the City's response to recommendation 6. City of Napa Response to 2011-2012 Napa County Grand Jury Report on Shooting in Alta Heights

R3

- the City of Napa establish procedures to utilize appropriate screening for sensitive crime scenes. Response - This recommendation will be implemented of this response.

R4

- the law enforcement departments in Napa County and Mental Health Department establish more effective coordination in situations of crisis intervention by (1) engaging in joint training exercises, and by (2) maintaining instantaneous communication and patching capability. Response - This recommendation will be implemented of this response. Joint training is already occurring. Although it is not known precisely what is meant by the Grand Jury's use of the phrase "instantaneous communication and patching," NPD will ensure that all patrol officers and supervisors have immediate, 24/7/365 contact information for mental health professionals who have been jointly trained to work with law enforcement during crisis intervention.

R5

- Within one year the Napa County Board of Supervisors and all Napa County incorporated local governments establish a civilian review board to examine all investigation documents of this incident and all future Officer involved shooting (OIS) incidents to provide feedback from a civilian point-of-view. Response - This recommendation is ambiguous and undefined, and will not be implemented as written because it is not warranted and not reasonable. The recommendation seems to call for Napa County and all incorporated municipalities to establish a single "civilian review board" to examine events surrounding Mr. Poccia's death and all future officer involved shootings which may occur, county wide. The City of Napa thinks it unreasonable for the relevant agencies to commit to establishing such an undefined civilian review entity on the 90-day time frame required by Penal Code Section 933 for this response. A wide variety of complex multi-jurisdictional, administrative, legal and financial issues are involved, and the efficacy of any such body is unclear. The Napa City Council has directed the City Manager and Police Department to more fully analyze the Grand Jury's recommendation, to work with other Napa County agencies, and to report back with its recommendations regarding the potential for civilian review of law enforcement, no later than February 1, 2013.

R6

- the Napa Police Department provide its staff effective public interface and/or appoint a liaison officer to inform and reassure the public during tense events. Response - This recommendation has been implemented. Two liaison officers have been appointed to inform and reassure communities during events which can be expected to impact them. The City will seek to ensure that at least one liaison officer is available at all times. The liaison officers will be assigned to communicate with individuals and groups who have been, or may have been, impacted by a significant event in their neighborhood. - ---- . City of Napa Response to 2011-2012 Napa County Grand<br>Jury Report on Shooting in Alta Heights Sincerely, Mike Parness City Manager Police Chief Richard Melton Cc: . 4 . 4 . NAPA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CRIMINAL DIVISION 931 Parkway Mall, P.O. Box 720 Napa, CA 94559-0720 www.countyofnapa.org Main: (707) 253-4211 Fax: (707) 253-4041 GARY LIEBERSTEIN District Attorney February 22, 2011 PRESS RELEASE Napa County District Attorney Gary Lieberstein announced today that his office has completed its investigation into the November 28, 2010 fatal shooting of Richard Poccia, age 60, by a Napa police officer. After careful review of all the evidence, the District Attorney's Office has concluded that, while this was an extremely tragic situation, Officer Nicholas Dalessi acted with legal justification, specifically, reasonable self defense, when he shot Poccia. The incident began on the morning of November 28, when the Napa Police Department received multiple reports from Poccia's wife, Samanda Dorger, and family friends, that Poccia, who was alone in his residence on Meek Avenue, had been in severe psychiatric distress for two days and was deteriorating. The police were informed that Poccia was drinking heavily, owned at least 13 firearms, including rifles and handguns, had fired a shot through an interior wall of his residence, was suicidal, and presented a danger to others. Poccia had previously been employed as a nurse for several years but more recently had been unemployed for months. A physician friend had visited Poccia earlier in the day and told police that Poccia spoke of confronting police officers if they came to his home and said, if they did, they would die or he would die, or both. The physician confirmed that Poccia was suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and paranoia. He also told police that Poccia was armed with two hand guns and a shotgun. Napa police consulted with Poccia's health provider who stated that Poccia may be suffering from withdrawal from Klonopin, commonly prescribed for seizure and panic disorders. Police also requested assistance from Napa Mental Health. A social worker tried to reach Poccia by telephone but he did not answer and did not return a voicemail message. Napa police eventually managed to contact Poccia by calling his cell phone. Poccia agreed to walk out of his house unarmed and to speak with officers on scene. Due to the number of firearms that Poccia possessed and the evidence that he was mentally unstable, the officers directed Poccia to walk out of the house slowly with his hands up. Initially, Poccia complied. However, when he approached the officers to within eight feet, his demeanor quickly changed. Despite the officers' repeated assurances to Poccia, addressing him by his first name, telling him they would not hurt him and were there only to help him, Poccia became belligerent and aggressive. He ignored constant commands to keep his hands up and to move slowly. Instead, he lunged at an officer, yelled profanities, and assumed a fighting stance. Although officers repeatedly ordered Poccia to keep his hands raised, he suddenly reached into his waistband and started to pull out an object. When he did so, Officer Dalessi assumed it was a gun and fired a single shot which killed Poccia instantly. The object that Poccia had pulled from his waistband was later identified as a metallic 4" folding knife. He otherwise was unarmed. Subsequent toxicology testing showed that at the time of his death, Poccia's blood-alcohol level was .32%. Tests also revealed the presence of Methadone and Diphenhydramine, a common sedative. Under California law, a killing by a police officer is justifiable and lawful when necessarily and reasonably committed in overcoming actual resistance to the performance of legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty (see California Penal Code Section 196). In determining whether a police officer's use of deadly force was necessary and reasonable, we recognize that officers often are forced to make split second judgments under tense, dangerous, and complex circumstances. Here, Poccia ignored the officers' announcements and directions. The officers were aware of his earlier threats to kill and knew that he owned numerous firearms, including some capable of being concealed on his person. When Poccia suddenly reached into his waistband and began to retrieve an object, the officers had less than one half-second to react. Given the totality of the circumstances, Officer Dalessi was justified in believing that Poccia presented an immediate and serious threat of death or great bodily harm. Under the law, the jurisdiction of the District Attorney is limited to a determination of whether or not a criminal act was committed in the use of lethal force. Accordingly, we have determined that Officer Dalessi's use of deadly force here was legally justified and, thereby, no criminal act was committed in the use of such force while carrying out his duties as a sworn police officer. . . 1.0 . -