Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
Officer-involved Critical Incidents July 1, 2004
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The “Officer Involved Critical Incident Protocol” requires that investigations be conducted "free of conflicts of interest." For that reason the investigations were conducted by a law enforcement agency whose employees were not involved in the incidents. The District Attorney’s Office also participated in the investigations and had the authority to investigate separately.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Upon completion of each incident investigation, the District Attorney’s Office reviewed the physical evidence, the transcribed witness interviews, photographs and all other evidentiary material.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Based on the evidence, the District Attorney’s Office reached its conclusions and issued critical incident reports for six cases. In each, the District Attorney’s Office concluded there was insufficient evidence of criminal liability.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The agencies that employ the involved officers conducted their own administrative investigations of each incident. Administrative investigations seek to determine if the agency's policies and procedures were followed in the incident and whether there could be improvement in those policies and procedures. They also make a determination as to whether any disciplinary action should be imposed against a particular individual or individuals.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The District Attorney’s Office responded to last year's grand jury recommendation that the District Attorney’s Office routinely provide the grand jury with a copy of each critical incident report in a timely manner. Six incidents were reported in a timely manner. One incident was not investigated by the District Attorney’s Office.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The District Attorney’s Office should send the civil grand jury a copy of its critical incident log. Conclusions The jury found that each of the critical incident reports reflects a thorough, detailed, and unbiased investigation by those assigned to the case. The conclusion of the District Attorney’s Office is clearly based on the evidence. The District Attorney’s Office completes reports in a timely manner. The jury concurs with the findings of the District Attorney’s Office that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any officer involved in the incidents reviewed. 2/3 July 1, 2004
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Each month beginning August 1, 2004, the District Attorney’s Office should send an updated copy of its critical incident log to the grand jury. Required Responses to Findings: None Required Responses to Recommendations: The District Attorney’s Office: R1
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 2The jury found that each of the critical incident reports reflects a thorough, detailed, and unbiased investigation by those assigned to the case. The conclusion of the District Attorney’s Office is clearly based on the evidence. The District Attorney’s Office completes reports in a timely manner. The jury concurs with the findings of the District Attorney’s Office that there was no wrongdoing on the part of any officer involved in the incidents reviewed. 2/3 July 1, 2004
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma County District Attorney
Elected County Office