Placer County Grand Jury 2023-2024 Final Report Response to Placer County

Recommendations 14

• R1
  have been (Describe the implemented actions.) Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented.
• R2
  have not yet been Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a targeted Per Penal Code 933.05(b)(2), a time frame for implementation must completion date of _______________________. be included. §
• R3
  require further analysis Recommendations numbered _____________ . The Describe the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a further analysis will be completed by ________________________. timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
• R4
  will not be Recommendations numbered _____________ implemented Provide an explanation. because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _________________________ Number of pages attached _______. 9 .05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. with a timeframe for implementation (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, . (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
• R5

  Page 27
  two counts of attempted murder,
• R6

  Page 27
  using a human shield to avoid arrest,
• R7

  Page 27
  possession of a firearm by a felon,
• R8

  Page 27
  carrying a loaded firearm for the purposes of committing a felony,
• R9
  assault with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, a firearm, and escape from the hospital. All criminal charges against Eric Abril are still pending (People vs Abril case number 62-191073) as of the date of this report. Califor nia Penal Code § 919 states in pertinent parts: (a)The grand jury may inquire into the case of every person imprisoned in the jail of the county on a criminal charge and not indicted. (c) The grand jury shall inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in the office of public officers of every description within the county. The grand jury determined during their investigation of the escape, there was willful misconduct and negligence. The grand jury is not alleging that there was intended willful corrupt misconduct by any individual. The misconduct and negligence, which resulted in Abril’s escape, was committed by a public officer within the meaning of Penal Code § 919(c), since the Attending 2 Deputy (AD) was appointed to his position by the elected sheriff of Placer County, and that appointment was for the purpose of exercising a governmental function, namely, to enforce the laws of the state and Placer County. Powers and Duties of Grand Jury. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?section Num=919.&lawCode=PEN. Accessed March 27, 2024. Public Officer. (n.d.). Dictionary. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/public%20officer. Accessed April 2, 2024. 19 , 2023, insofar as they pertain to the policies and procedures of the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, in place at that time, regarding prisoner classification and transportation as well as the conduct, actions and/or inactions of the AD on that day. The grand jury also made a determination as to what duties and conduct should have been reasonably expected of the AD under same or similar circumstances. Therefore, the policies and procedures regarding the classification and transportation of prisoners and the AD’s conduct, actions and/or inactions leading uMpe ttoh aondd odulorigngy the escape, are legitimate areas of inquiry by the grand jury. The Placer County Grand Jury conducted interviews with PCSO staff and other
• R10

  Page 28
  sources familiar with the escape, and reviewed:
• R11
  • PCSO’s policies and procedures. Various video recordings. Scott Jones, Esq. report titled, “Final Report and Recommendations, Escape 3 Discufsrosmio Cnu stody, July 9, 2023.” On April 6, 2023, Eric James Abril was arrested and initially charged with having committed numerous serious felony violations of the California Penal Code in connection with his criminal conduct at Mahany Park in the City of Roseville. Abril was thereafter housed at the Placer County Main Jail in Auburn in the custody of the PCSO. Abril was known to law enforcement, having previously been convicted of multiple crimes in Santa Clara and San Luis Obispo Counties and having an open warrant in SacrSaamnetnat Co lCaoruan Ctyo. unty Crimes
• R12

  Page 28
  2008 – Larceny, burglary, possession of deadly weapons. 2010 – Second-degree burglary conviction. San Lu2i0s1 O3 b–i sCponov Cicotiuonnt fyo rC craimrreyisn g a concealed knife.
• R13

  Page 28
  2014 – Intimidating/threatening a witness, burglary, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, assault causing great bodily injury, resisting arrest, and possession of a switchblade knife. Served two years of a six- year sentence. Final Report and Recommendations, Escape from Custody, July 9, 2023. https://www.placer.ca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/73520/July-9-2023-Inmate-Escape-from-Custody-Report. Accessed October 17, 2023. 20 -2024 Final Report Sacramento County Pending Charges
• R14

  Page 29
  2023 – Felony warrant for attempted murder after a freeway shooting in 4 Placer CoFuenbtryu Sarhye 2r0if2f’3s. Office Policy - Classification of Inmates After initially being medically cleared by SRMC, the inmate was classified by PCSO staff as Ad-Sep per the criteria set forth in the California Board of State and 5 Community Corrections manual, Title 15 § 1050. Ad-Sep is the highest inmate classification level requiring a higher level of security than is usual. This classification level typically requires a two-officer escort for inmate movement inside the custodial facility and for transportation outside the custodial facility. This initial classification was the direct result of the seriousness of the charges the inmate was initially arraigned on. Thirty-three days after his initial incarceration, for reasons within the discretion of the PCSO, the inmate’s classification was modified to allow a downgrade from a two- officer to a one-officer escort/transportation security status. Consistent with the terms contained within the classification decision tree, this downgrade was primarily due to the inmate not having had any notable disciplinary issues since being initially incarcerated. This classification was never meant for use outside the jail including transportation to other outside locations. Strict adherence contained in the classification decision tree, has led to the practice of officers applying this internal classification to transportation outside of the custodial setting, including Abril’s transportation to SRMC. The error in judgement of this security status downgrade meant any time Abril spent outside the jail would only require a single deputy to ensure he would not escape. This possibility existed for the duration of time he was outside the jail, be it during transportation, or in this case, the several days the inmate was at SRMC under medical observation immediately prior to his escape. The grand jury was told during an interview, inmate classification is a routine task for the Corrections Division of the PCSO, and “there was no policy for classification because each circumstance and inmate were different.” However, PCSO exercised a standard application of this policy as a rule. A review of the documentation provided shows weekly evaluation of the inmate’s classification and security status was regularly performed. CBS News Sacramento. https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/failed-policies-part-3-the-escape/. Accessed April 1, 2024. Title 15 Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities. https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/ Attachment-C-Title-15.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2024. 21 , 2023, Abril was transported from the Placer County Main Jail to SRMC for observation and to monitor him for potential seizure activity. When Abril was transported, per the classification tree, it was by ambulance under the supervision of a single sheriff’s deputy. The single-deputy low-level supervision continued from the time Abril was admitted, over a period of approximately three days, until Abril managed to escape custody of the PCSO in the early hours of July 9, 2023. While at SRMC Abril was guarded in a single-bed room, wearing a belly chain that was not attached to the bed, and was required to have at least one hand always handcuffed to the frame of the bed. A video camera was trained on Abril for the eAnbtririle’s t iEmsec haep we afsr oumnd Seru mtteerd iRcaols oebvsiellrev aMtieodni cata Sl RCMenC tuenr t–il Jthuel yti 9m,e 2 o0f2 h3i,s 3e:s0c0a pe. a.m. Investigation and video evidence has shown that on July 8, 2023, a shift change occurred in the early evening with the outgoing deputy conducting a briefing to the incoming deputy. The investigation also found the AD spent extended periods of time outside Abril’s room, with no line of sight on the inmate. During one instance, a nurse entered the room and one minute later the AD exited the room for over six minutes, leaving the nurse alone with an unguarded and dangerous inmate. The AD took a total of twelve trips outside the room to make phone calls, pace the halls, and chat with nurses and other patients. Another two trips were to the inmate’s hospital room bathroom where the AD can be seen closing the door the first time. On the 22 , 2023, until approximately 3:00 a.m. on July 9, 2023, shows Abril removing the small metal EEG leads attached to his head. In this case, EEG feeds were not monitored by medical staff at the nursing station, nor were alarms activated when the leads were removed. He eventually removed all of them. When the deputy left the room, Abril slowly worked to remove his only handcuff. Once he got his right hand free, there were no other restraints to keep him in his bed. The AD whose responsibility was to see this inmate was physically secured failed to do so, violating several PCSO policies and procedures. Once the inmate’s hands were no longer restrained, there was nothing to keep him from escaping. Videos show that Abril waited for the AD to lose line of sight again while the AD was in the bathroom. When this opportunity presented itself, for the fourteenth time, Abril walked out of his room and escaped the SRMC campus. The first law enforcement officer to notify dispatch of a possible escape was a CHP officer, who was on the SRMC campus at the time. The highway patrol officer advised CHP dispatch, who in turn advised PCSO dispatch of “subject in orange jumpsuit, possibly escaped.” The grand jury was unable to verify whether the AD failed to ask medical staff to call 911. The table below details video evidence taken from July 8, 2023, to July 9, 2023, observed by the Placer County Grand Jury. Video Evidence Sequence of Events July 8, 2023 to July 9, 2023 Time (24-hour Event clock) 21:36 Attending Deputy removes his LBV. Attending Deputy adjusts body-worn camera on LBV, causing the 22:00 body-worn camera to not capture the inmate or immediate area. Inmate succeeds in manipulating his right hand out of the single 23:15 handcuff. When the inmate’s right hand is free, he covers it up with his blanket. 23