Orange County Grand Jury
• 2003-2004
A Tempest in a Teapot or a Violation of Public Trust? 07/01/04, 102k
⚠️ 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 3 findings
F1
The District Attorney concluded that, as to the crime of filing a false police report [Penal Code §118.1], there was no violation of the law, since a prosecution under that statute requires proof of a false statement and not simply an omission on the part of the peace officer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
To avoid public perceptions of conflict of interest, the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department use an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent investigation of this incident, either separate from or parallel to the Sheriff’s Department internal-affairs investigation. (Findings 1, 2 and 3) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
F2
As to the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice [Penal Code §182 (5)], the District Attorney concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a violation of the statute beyond a reasonable doubt.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Some Orange County Sheriff’s Department managers were not forthright in explaining the true facts of the incident to the public and to other governmental agencies. Responses to Findings 1 and 2 are required from the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 1, 2 and 3 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 3
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.