The Grand Jury System

Deputy Safety Officer’s Intimidation and Harassment on August 28, 2009: a. The complainant stated that the Deputy Safety Officer arrived in a marked Mono County Sheriff car on August 28, 2009 accompanied by two additional deputies to deliver a safety code. The complainant complained feeling intimidated and harassed by the unnecessary presence of the additional officers. The deputy’s report of the incident stated that the Deputy Safety Officer asked that the deputy and one additional officer to be present on August

Deputy Harassments on August 28, 2009: The audio digital recording confirmed that the deputy interrupted the Deputy Safety Officer and began to interrogate the complainant about agitation and drug use. The voices of the Deputy Safety Officer and the other deputies did not appear on the recording after the deputy initiated questioning. The deputy's first comment to the complainant was to calm down, followed by a question about agitation. The Investigative Committee could not detect this agitated behavior on the audio digital recording. During the next recorded 30-45 minutes, the deputy reported observations of the complainant's pupils, eyelid tremor, eye redness, as well as pulse rate, speech rate and agitation, postural steadiness, and general calmness. The deputy linked each observation back to drugs that the deputy suspected the complainant had taken. The Investigative Committee could find no evidence on the recording that demonstrated agitation or aggression. The Investigative Committee heard the complainant agreeing to all requested searches without complaint. The deputy asked the complainant's permission to search the truck parked next to the residence, which the deputy also asked permission to search. The complainant agreed. The deputy asked the complainant to produce any guns present (which were seized), and medications (which were seized). The complainant showed the deputy where each item in the home was located. The deputy read the complainant a Miranda warning, and requested that the 11 complainant come to the Sheriff’s Station for further drug testing, including a blood sample to be drawn by an EMT. The complainant agreed to come voluntarily. The deputy handcuffed the complainant, drove to the Station, and proceeded to repeat the same observational tests and measure blood pressure. After the blood test, a deputy returned the complainant to the individual’s business. The deputy’s written report of the incident indicated that some of the physical observations of the complainant were consistent with use of a single drug: some observations indicated a central nervous system depressant and others a central excitant. The deputy explained these contradictions by concluding that the complainant may have taken more than one kind of central nervous system narcotic drug. The deputy, in both report and interview, did not accept any of the complainant’s explanations, all of which the Investigative Committee could hear on the audio digital recording. The complainant stated that he has a chronic eye disease that produces red eyes, and had constricted pupils because the sun was very bright. The complainant denied being agitated, but admitted to being a fast talker. The Investigative Committee heard the deputy on the audio recording frequently repeating the statement that these questions were being asked for the complainant’s own benefit. The Investigative Committee reviewed a copy of the action report prepared by the District Attorney (DA) and sent back to the Sheriff’s Department about a week later on September 10, 2009. This action report noted that the State's results of the blood tests were all negative, and concluded that no further investigation or arrest was justified. The Investigative Committee asked the deputy about the training and experience received in detecting the presence of illegal drugs. The deputy stated having 29 years of experience in high drug areas regarding characteristics and behavior indicative of drug ingestion. The Investigative Committee asked the deputy if it was possible that the complainant might display these behaviors without having ingested any drugs, and that the behavior observed might be attributed to personality, abetted by eye disease and the circumstances. The deputy did not accept these possibilities, and reported that narcotics are always the cause of these behaviors and symptoms. He said to the complainant on the audio recording: "The eyes don't lie." The Investigative Committee asked the deputy about the State's negative drug findings, and the deputy reported he disagreed with the State's findings.

Adherence to the Policies and Procedures Manual of the Sheriff’s Department: The Investigative Committee requested a copy of the Sheriff’s Department's Policies and Procedures Manual, which was furnished. It contains the required policies and procedures covering all of their operations, including investigations 12 and reports. The Investigative Committee examined this manual for policies and procedures that applied to the activities of the officers in the Sheriff’s Department involved in these complaints. The Investigative Committee found four relevant policies. These included:

If an officer observes a citizen engaged in potentially illegal behavior, a report is to be filed and an investigation initiated (complaint 1b). The Investigative Committee asked the Sheriff about each of these policies and procedures. The Sheriff acknowledged that these policies are included in the Policies and Procedures Manual, and that officers are expected to follow them. DISCUSSION:

The report stated that the three officers arrived in three marked vehicles. The complainant approached the officers, and the Deputy Safety Officer handed the complainant a one-page copy of the Safety Code, which the complainant read and acknowledged. The audio digital recording made by this deputy confirmed the Deputy Safety Officer told the complainant that the complainant was in violation of a safety code requirement for which a citation and fine could be issued. The complainant said the safety device looked appropriate and a good idea and that it would be immediately purchased. (Proof of this purchase was given to the Investigative Committee). The complainant questioned the Deputy Safety Officer why it was necessary to bring addition officers to serve this notice. The Investigative Committee could hear on the audio digital recording that the complainant maintained composure and at no time displayed agitation or anger. In the interviews, the Investigative Committee asked the Sheriff, and the two deputies involved if it was unusual to bring supporting officers along when delivering a code document. They all stated that while it might be unusual in this circumstance, an officer is trained to err on the side of safety. If the officer has any concern regarding safety, backup support should be considered. According to the deputy’s report and the audio 9 digital recording, no safety concerns occurred. The complainant was not cited for the absence of the safety device. b. The complainant was of the opinion that the Deputy Safety Officer brought the extra officers and acted in a threatening manner because of two earlier incidents. According to the complainant, the Deputy Safety Officer showed up on May 9, 2009 and stated to the complainant that there was equipment on the premises that was in violation of the code. The complainant told the Investigative Committee that he offered to show the Deputy Safety Officer evidence that no violation was present. The Deputy Safety Officer rejected the offer; they argued; and the complainant finally ordered the Deputy Safety Officer to get off the property, which the Deputy Safety Officer did. When the Investigative Committee interviewed the Deputy Safety Officer’s supervisor, the supervisor said that the Deputy Safety Officer verbally reported his visit on May 9 to the complainant, but the Deputy Safety Officer said that the complainant feloniously threatened the Deputy Safety Officer, who was forced to flee to safety. This may have been the reason the Deputy Safety Officer decided to bring backup on Aug 28. However, the Investigating Committee had no access to the Deputy Safety Officer to verify this. The supervisor told the Investigative Committee that neither the Deputy Safety Officer, the supervisor, nor any other officer filed a report, or initiated any investigation of this claimed felony, and no documentation is available. In the written complaint, the complainant had no knowledge of the Deputy Safety Officer’s version of what occurred on May 9. The Investigative Committee discovered the second version when it compared the interviews of the complainant and the Deputy Safety Officer's supervisor. At the time the complaint was written, the complainant had no knowledge that the Deputy Safety Officer had reported that confrontation to his superior and to other officers in the Sheriff’s Department as a felonious assault. c. A few days later, the second incident occurred that the complainant felt contributed to the August 28, 2009 confrontation. The complainant told the Investigative Committee of observing the Deputy Safety Officer running into boats, while on the lake, and reported these observations to the Deputy Safety Officer's supervisor. When interviewed, the supervisor acknowledged receiving this verbal complaint from the complainant, but did not write a report, so there was no specific written report of the “unsafe and dangerous manner”. d. The complainant stated that the Mono County Sheriff’s Department, and particularly the Deputy Safety Officer neither provided nor assisted the complainant in obtaining safety materials. In its interview with the Deputy Safety Officer’s supervisor, the Investigative Committee showed the 10 supervisor the materials it obtained from the complainant, and the supervisor stated these materials were unfamiliar, he did not know their content, or their distribution. In return, the supervisor gave the Investigative Committee a much larger book containing the relevant State and County laws and practices, saying that this larger manual was the guide used by the Deputy Safety Officer. The supervisor reported to the Investigative Committee that the source of the safety notice handed to the complainant on August 28 was unknown. Ten days later, the supervisor informed the Investigative Committee finding that it was from p. 211 of that book. The supervisor stated that he did not know what the Deputy Safety Officer distributed to relevant citizens. e. The complainant stated in the complaint: "I want very much to work with the various agencies here, but this previous situation with the County has made me completely distrustful of this agency". In the Investigative Committee's interview, the complainant stated that the context of this quote referred to the Sheriff’s Department, and especially to this Deputy Safety Officer. In the interview with the Investigative Committee, the complainant reiterated repeatedly about being unable to work with the Deputy Safety Officer. The Investigative Committee questioned each of the two deputies, the Safety Officer’s supervisor and the Sheriff, and each reported that they perceived the complainant to be unreliable, excitable, and argumentative.