Telephone Conversation*

Sheriff's Office personnel and District Attorney staff were unable to produce a relevant statute or a written policy when asked if the disclosure of recorded inmate conversations to third parties was legal. RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees with this finding. The Sheriff's Office does not have a written policy regarding the disclosure of recorded inmate conversations to third parties. Sheriff's Office deputies are required to be up to date on current case law and other statues that affect their daily law enforcement practices. In the event that they are not up to date with certain penal statutes or case law interpretations, they have the opportunity to discuss their cases with Sheriff's Office supervisors or managers in order to locate a valid resource to assist them in understanding the law. Some of those resources include: County Counsel, the District Attorney's Office, and local law enforcement experts. With regard to this particular case, according to the District Attorney's Office and the investigating detective they were in "constant contact" with one another because of the complex nature of this case. There were detailed discussions related to disclosure of the recorded information made by the inmate as they were concerned that one of the parties intimately involved with the suspect was potentially an additional victim. Furthermore, the third party that was allowed to listen to the recorded conversation was subsequently identified as an unwitting co-conspirator (suspect) involved in several attempts to smuggle illegal drugs into the Main Adult Detention Facility. Penal Code Section 637, and the Grand Jury's report that referenced the private attorney's opinion, indicate that there needs to be "legitimate law enforcement concerns (e.g. to prevent the commission of a crime, dissuading a witness, etc.)," and "legitimate jail security concerns (e.g. smuggling contraband into the facility, escape plans, etc.)," in order to disclose recorded conversations to a third party. Both of these criteria were present in this case. Because of the detectives resourceful approach, the deputy district attorney and investigating detective in this case were able to identify additional victims, prevent a felony from being committed, and prevent an unwitting victim from being arrested for violation of Penal Code Section 4573.5. Therefore, the disclosure of the recorded inmate conversation to the third party in question was legal. Sheriff's Office Response to Grand Jury

The citizen's complaint (CC) investigation done by Sheriff's Office personnel in this case was lacking in that only the detective involved was interviewed. RESPONSE: The respondent disagrees with this finding. After further review of the abovementioned citizen's complaint investigation, the Sheriff believes it is clearly documented in the citizen's complaint report that the Sheriff's Office investigator did contact an additional involved party who had relevant information related to this investigation. This information, combined with a review of the criminal investigation, all other documents and materials related to this case, and a thorough interview of the detective associated with this complaint, establishes that a comprehensive investigation was completed. The focus of this citizen's complaint investigation was to determine if the complainant's civil rights were violated, and if the investigating detective, "unethically" defamed the complainant's character. Based on the findings that were a result of a thorough investigation, the statement "This case was lacking in that only the detective involved was interviewed" is incorrect. In fact, there was an additional involved party interviewed, and additional information that was reviewed to determine the validity of the complaint received.

There appears to be a lack of methodology (i.e. recorded documentation of discussions and results of discussions) when deputies seek advice from the deputy district attorneys. <u>RESPONSE:</u> The respondent disagrees with this finding. During the course of criminal investigations, the investigative process can often be complicated and very fluid. As law enforcement investigators develop new leads and/or evidence it is not uncommon to discover that suspects involved in certain cases are also identified or involved in other criminal activity. Many of those criminal acts involve similar crimes; however, some suspects are very sophisticated and can be involved in a multitude of criminal behaviors. Based on the complexity of these investigations, detectives, investigators, and law enforcement officers are constantly interviewing, contacting, and arresting additional suspects involved in various crimes. There are times when the investigative process does not include detective contact with individual deputy district attorneys until the case has actually been reviewed and/or filed. Once a case has been filed or reviewed, additional information or investigative requests may be made by a representative of the District Attorney's Office (such as a district attorney investigator) in order to assist with the prosecution of each case. Additionally, it is not uncommon for certain cases to be transferred from one deputy district attorney to another based on workload and/or assignment. Investigative follow-up may be documented in a supplemental report or discussed with the deputy district attorney to determine if there is any evidentiary value related to the case. The most common method used by Sheriff's Office deputies and detectives to document any information they believe to be relevant to the case is by completing a written supplemental report or inner office memorandum. Based on the complexity of some cases, it would be inefficient, complicated, and unrealistic to record every telephone conversation that took place between the Sheriff's Office Response to 2011-2012 Grand Jury of 4 district attorney's office and the investigating detectives or deputies. Based on training, experience, professional judgment, and consultation with peers and supervisors, Sheriff's deputies and detectives determine what details to document. <b>RECOMMENDATIONS (Pages 27, 28)</b> The Sheriff's Office consult with its counsel regarding the legal ramifications of