Review of Select Simi Valley Police Department Processes

The Grand Jury found that, with respect to the processing of the criminal complaint of alleged embezzlement, the SVPD had acted on that complaint properly as to its policies and procedures and without political motivation or unusual delay. The initial assignment of detectives and the start of the investigation occurred within a normal period of time for this type of investigation. Given the complexity of the case, the investigation could not have been closed for many months beyond the election date. (FA-01 through FA-13)

The Grand Jury found no impropriety with respect to the questioned surveillance and discerned no improper political motivation. (FA-14 through FA-16)

The Grand Jury found that a lack of timely promised feedback to the EI complainant led to frustration and resulted in negative comments in the press. (FA-17) Recommendations

On October 19, 2010, a police report of an alleged major embezzlement ($500,000) from a law office, operated by two attorneys at the time of the alleged embezzlement, was entered into the RMS. [Ref-01 through Ref-05, Ref-09, and Ref-11 through Ref-13]

On October 25, 2010, pursuant to SVPD news media release of information policy, the SVPD—upon inquiry from the Star—confirmed to the Star that “. . . a crime report was filed . . .” with respect to the alleged embezzlement and that detectives would conduct an investigation. [Ref-09]

The Officers’ Association’s endorsed candidate for Mayor was associated with the alleged embezzler in law practice. [Ref-01 through Ref-04, Ref-07, and Ref-11 through Ref-13] Review of Select SVPD Processes 3

One week following the filing of the embezzlement complaint, on October 25, 2010, two detectives were assigned to work as a team on the embezzlement investigation (EI). The lead detective was the most experienced SVPD white-collar crime investigator and the second investigator was newly assigned to the detective division.

On November 21, 2010, the lead detective role for the EI case was re-assigned to the second investigator, with support from the prior lead detective who had been transferred to another detective division. [Ref-05]

RMS data reflects that, for the period from May 1, 2010 through October 28, 2010, the average (mean) time to assign a property report, such as embezzlement, to detectives was 7.04 days.

RMS data reflects that, for the period from May 1, 2010 through October 28, 2010, the average (mean) time to close a property case from the initial report was 29.09 days. The minimum number of days to closure for that same period was 0 (same day as assignment). The maximum number of days to closure for that same period was 268.

It was understood by the SVPD that this EI case would be time- consuming and complex. It was immediately understood by SVPD management that in a case involving a law office—where a specific attorney in a firm was accused of embezzlement—the complexity of the case would be extraordinary; among other things, it would require the appointment of a special master, to preview documents for the court to avoid disclosure of privileged information. [Ref-01, and Ref-03 through Ref-06]

SVPD management understood that, in an EI case, it was necessary to proceed cautiously and thoroughly under the purview of their most experienced white collar crime investigators. In this case—because of the requirement in embezzlement investigations of massive paper gathering efforts from protected bank and office records—there appeared little risk of evidence being destroyed; start time—though important—was not a critical factor. [Ref-05]

As of January 10, 2011, the RMS reflects a large number of entries for the EI case. These entries are indicative of the beginning of the volume of necessary evidence being acquired; as noted in FA-12, above. The EI, as of the date of this report, is still in process.

A criminal complaint was filed with the SVPD on August 31, 2010 with respect to campaign signs being vandalized at various locations in the City. [Ref-02]

In response to the complaint referred to in FA-14, above, surveillance was approved, before the fact, by SVPD management. The surveillance was conducted in a particular location where repeated vandalizing acts had occurred and, therefore, promised possible results. Review of Select SVPD Processes

A filed criminal complaint—such as that referred to in FA-14—could not be responsibly ignored by the SVPD. There is SVPD documented history of a similar campaign sign surveillance having been conducted several years prior to this surveillance.

Although there is no duty to inform the public, the media, or a complainant of the progress of a case, in this instance, there was a failure of the SVPD to provide timely promised feedback to the complainant on the status of the criminal embezzlement case. [Ref-01] Findings