📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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 7 findings
F1
Page 210
The CPD made minimal effort to contact the complainant after the fact.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 210
The Clearlake Police Department become more cognizant of effective communication, especially in dealing with the elderly population. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: • Clearlake Police Department via Clearlake City Council (90 days) 2009-2010 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
F2
Page 210
There was miscommunication between the complainant and police; not enough care was given to communicating with the elderly victim.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 210
The Clearlake Police Department become more cognizant of effective communication, especially in dealing with the elderly population. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: • Clearlake Police Department via Clearlake City Council (90 days) 2009-2010 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
F3
Page 210
The complainant was not given appropriate police assistance after his return to Lake County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 210
The Clearlake Police Department become more cognizant of effective communication, especially in dealing with the elderly population. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: • Clearlake Police Department via Clearlake City Council (90 days) 2009-2010 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
F4
Page 210
The victim could not definitively identify the items over the phone to the officer’s satisfaction.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 210
The Clearlake Police Department become more cognizant of effective communication, especially in dealing with the elderly population. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: • Clearlake Police Department via Clearlake City Council (90 days) 2009-2010 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
F5
Page 210
The officer-in-charge did not adequately communicate the urgency of the victim’s returning home to identify the items or the consequences if the victim did not do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 210
The Clearlake Police Department become more cognizant of effective communication, especially in dealing with the elderly population. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5) Agency/Department(s) Required to Respond: • Clearlake Police Department via Clearlake City Council (90 days) 2009-2010 Lake County Civil Grand Jury
F6
Page 210
Since there is no documentation that the residence was checked at the time the incident, it can not be determined if it were secure on March 3, 2009.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 210
CPD policies and procedures were followed in the field during thisincident. However, there clearly needed to be more follow-up.
No recommendations for this finding