Wrong Place? Wrong Time?

The investigation by the San Diego County Probation Department of the October 11-16, 2001 hall check incident was not conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

Three supervisors who conducted the investigation had no previous investigative experience. These investigating officers were supervisors from either the day or early night shift during October 2001 assigned to Juvenile Hall, just one step in rank above those being investigated. They were investigating officers who were often social friends or acquaintances from different shifts. During an interview, one of the investigators stated how difficult it was to conduct the investigation. The investigator shared how much peer pressure was endured both during and after the investigation.

The SDCPD did not seek the assistance of the San Diego County Internal Affairs Department, which employs expert investigators. The Grand Jury has verified that the San Diego County Internal Affairs Department did have sufficient personnel to conduct such an investigation at the time in question.

The SDCPD chose not to utilize personnel from the Department’s own Internal Affairs Division to conduct the investigation because it allegedly did not have sufficient staff to handle this assignment. 4

The investigators often discussed their investigation results with the Director of Juvenile Hall and the Internal Affairs Director of the SDCPD. Those contacts give the appearance of ‘command influence’. This ‘command influence’ problem would not have been an issue had the County Internal Affairs Department conducted the investigation.

The investigators discussed the interviews with each other, and then by agreement tried to assign friends or work associates to another investigator. Even in cases they chose not to hear, they often sat in as ‘back up’. For the most part, a team of two investigators conducted each interview.

This investigation has had, and will have, a great impact on both the morale and efficiency of the SDCPD and should have been conducted by the most competent personnel available.

Of the 37 officers disciplined or terminated, only two had received substandard ratings prior to October 2001; the rest were rated as competent employees. Two of them had been chosen the Probation Department’s ‘Employee of the Year’. Some were mentors to their fellow employees. Many had worked for the SDCPD for over 20 years.

The background check procedure for SDCPD officers is very involved and includes psychological testing.4 This system disqualifies many applicants and makes it difficult to find eligible line and entry-level candidates for employment. These facts support the statement that many of the fired officers had impeccable backgrounds prior to being hired. B. The Probation Department’s investigation focused on personnel assigned only to the late night shift. One of the three investigators reviewing the videotapes with the Grand Jury admitted that violations of the 15-minute hall checks did occur on the early night shift.