Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006 City Cops are Sharing Information –Why not the County? 1. Summary

Summary Some Acronyms in this Report The need for sharing selected criminal justice information using more advanced technologies has CMS Case Management System been a goal of Orange County criminal justice JPA Joint Power Agreement agencies for at least seven years. Criminal justice (Authority) information is collected by agencies such as city police departments, the Orange County Sheriff’s MOA Memorandum of Agreement Department (OCSD), the Superior Court, the OCILJ Orange County Integrated Probation Department, the District Attorney, and the Law & Justice Public Defender. OCSD Orange County Sheriff’s This information is typically found in each agency’s Department unique data base with sharing among agencies RMS Record Management System limited in the past to telephone or fax. The following is an example of how such information sharing could be used: A city patrol officer receives information from an informant that escapees from another county are at an address in a different Orange County city. In a matter of seconds, the officer verifies through a county-wide information sharing system that one of the escapees lives at that address. Officers from the second city are dispatched and all escapees are captured. The Grand Jury conducted a study to determine the agencies’ current participation in criminal justice information sharing and found that: 1.1 Beginning in 2005, the Superior Court and police departments in Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove, Irvine, Newport Beach and Orange began sharing their criminal justice information which is also used by other Orange County cities, all via the Internet-based product, COPLINK®, selected by the Orange County Integrated Law and Justice (OCILJ) Steering Committee. 1.2 County agencies, including the OCSD, do not share their criminal justice information with COPLINK®, do not use the Court and city criminal justice information available via COPLINK® , and apparently have few, if any, firm plans to implement the system. 1.3 County agencies were originally included in a 2002 proposed Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the Integrated Law and Justice Agency for Orange County; however, because of non-participation, the county agencies have not been included as member agencies in the currently proposed JPA whose stated . Introduction and Purpose of the Study In 1999, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by Orange County criminal justice agencies established the OCILJ Steering Committee. These agencies agreed to facilitate sharing of each other’s data. A 2001 Strategic Plan, sponsored by the Steering Committee, recommended several desirable solutions, including the sharing of Record Management System (RMS) and Case Management System (CMS) data. In 2004, COPLINK® was selected as the tool to facilitate this RMS/CMS information sharing. RMS/CMS sharing is expected to improve safety of the public and law enforcement officers because of the immediate availability of critical information. Based on indications that several issues had impacted implementation of the OCILJ Strategic Plan, the purpose of this study is to determine the status of these cooperative efforts, to identify the issues involved, and to search for answers that would accelerate the RMS/CMS information sharing project.

Method of Study The study methodology consists of determining the status of Strategic Plan solutions, including the RMS/CMS project, and determining the operational status of COPLINK® and its adoption by Orange County criminal justice agencies. The study methodology was to: • Review the OCILJ Strategic Plan • Conduct interviews with OCILJ participants • Research the existing COPLINK® network • Review RMS sharing by the OCSD • Review CMS sharing by the Probation Department and the District Attorney’s Office • As a baseline, review another California county’s approach to sharing of criminal justice agencies’ data • Develop observations, findings and recommendations based on analysis of the collected information City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? 4. Background In 1999, an OCILJ System MOA was entered into by all 21 city police departments, the Orange County City Manager’s Association, Orange County Superior Court, and six county agencies, including OCSD, Probation Department, District Attorney’s Office, County Executive Office, Marshal’s Department, and Public Defender’s Office. The MOA stated that these agencies “… agree to work cooperatively to establish a seamless integrated system of information technology and services that maximizes the standardization of data and communications technology among the primary community of interest: law enforcement, district attorneys, state-funded courts and state funded adult and youth corrections. In addition, the parties agree to work in a variety of ways to facilitate sharing each other’s data in an effort to improve the effectiveness of their respective agency and collectively, the entire Orange County Criminal Justice System.” 4.1 OCILJ Strategic Plan In 2001, Deloitte Consulting LLP published the OCILJ Strategic Plan to provide an information infrastructure connecting Orange County criminal justice agencies with the stated goal being “…to improve the access to information across agencies as well as to enhance both individual and agency mission performance.” To meet this goal, the Strategic Plan identified ten solutions. Although the Grand Jury reviewed the current status of OCILJ projects associated with each proposed solution, the study focused on the RMS/CMS information sharing project because it is critical to the success of OCILJ. (See Appendix 9.1 for a description and status of each solution/project.) 4.2 RMS/CMS Information Sharing Project Criminal justice information is currently maintained on more than two dozen disparate databases. RMS data is maintained on law enforcement agency systems and CMS data is maintained on systems by agencies such as Superior Court, Probation Department, and District Attorney. Historically, the primary process for sharing this RMS/CMS data from one agency to another has been through the telephone or fax. The RMS/CMS project involves making selected data available via the Internet to agencies within the OCILJ network for use by authorized investigators and patrol officers. Examples of data regularly collected by law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, field interviews, contacts, citations, and incident reports. Another component of this project is to implement RMS/CMS information analysis tools to support criminal investigations in an accelerated manner. Major benefits will be increased safety for the public and law enforcement officers, more effective and efficient handling of criminal investigations, and reduced cost. “Records Management System Data Sharing Solution - Request for Proposal”, the RMS/CMS Information Sharing project was intended to be implemented in two phases: 4.2.1 Phase 1 This initial phase was to enable the sharing of Superior Court citation data, three to seven police RMS systems, and the OCSD RMS. Search and analysis tools would be acquired and deployed to allow for the flexible export of data as well as analysis within the provided toolsets. 4.2.2 Phase 2 This phase was less well-defined but at a high level involved the incorporation of the remaining police department RMS systems and, potentially, portions of Probation Department and District Attorney CMS systems. It was expected that approximately 17 additional systems would be integrated ultimately in Phase 2. As several of the agencies involved in this phase were implementing or considering implementation of a new RMS or CMS system, this phase was expected to be long term. 4.3 Administrative Change In 2003, at the request of the Orange County Chiefs’ & Sheriff’s Association, the administrative oversight of OCILJ grant monies, originally obtained by the OCSD, was transferred from the County of Orange to the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach, through the Chief of the Newport Beach Police Department, had consistently been at the forefront of OCILJ efforts. 4.4 COPLINK® In response to a 2004 Request for Proposal for a system to share RMS/CMS data, nine proposals/bids were submitted. The City of Newport Beach and the OCILJ Steering Committee, on behalf of Orange County criminal justice agencies, selected the COPLINK® product. COPLINK® relies on a data base that receives, sorts, consolidates, indexes, and stores data from the disparate data sources maintained by criminal justice agencies. COPLINK® also permits a user to perform analysis of the data contained in the COPLINK® database to discover hidden relationships and co- occurrences. This analysis is necessary to ensure that patrol officers and investigators are not inundated with extensive amounts of data. The COPLINK® website includes many applicable media articles from which the Grand Jury selected the following samples to demonstrate possible COPLINK® usage: • “While officials say crime analysts in various police departments already communicate well, the computer program does it faster and puts together bits of details that might have been overlooked, network experts say … City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? COPLINK has clients in more than 130 jurisdictions across the nation.” (Denver Post 12/30/05) • “The Tucson Police Department uses COPLINK as its integrating computer program. Officers who need to follow leads for a suspect, vehicle, or address use COPLINK, which performs searches even when officers have limited suspect information.” (Police Chief Magazine 12/05/05) • “Data integrity is also a big issue. With COPLINK, data continues to reside and be updated at its existing source. No data is ever entered into the system directly. Automatic trigger refresh mechanisms ensure that if new data is added or old data is deleted from the existing source, it is automatically reflected in COPLINK. This makes the data more trust worthy.” (Homeland Science & Technology 12/04) • “Called ‘COPLINK’, the program sifts through tens of millions of police records, from 911 calls to homicide investigations, to deliver a short list of potential leads in just seconds. The same kind of searching currently takes hours or even days of a detective's time -- when it is possible at all.” (The Boston Globe 7/17/03) 4.5 San Diego County Information Sharing In 1981, San Diego County initiated the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) as a Joint Powers Agency to share information among criminal justice agencies throughout the two California counties that border Mexico: San Diego and Imperial. Notable aspects of ARJIS include: • In 2001, three of the 9/11 terrorists were in ARJIS but there was no federal access. Today ARJIS has evolved into a criminal justice network used by 71 local, state, and federal agencies in San Diego and Imperial Counties. More than 11,000 authorized users generate more than 35,000 transactions daily. • In 2004, COPLINK® was added to ARJIS as one of two investigative systems. COPLINK® was the first system implemented by ARJIS that was compliant with FBI National Crime Information Center 2000, which is a nationwide information system dedicated to serving and supporting criminal justice agencies -- local, state, and federal.

Observations and Discussion 5.1 OCILJ Strategic Plan Implementation The status of the 10 solutions suggested in the 2001 OCILJ Strategic Plan is shown in Chart 5.1. (See Appendix 9.1 for a brief description and more detailed status of each solution/project.) .1 - Strategic Plan Implementation Status (January 2006) Implemented Not fully 5 implemented 3 Not yet started 2 Note: Two of the projects that were implemented are currently not in service due to system changes; however, they will be returned to service. 5.2 COPLINK® Implementation Status 5.2.1 Phase 1 On July 18, 2005, COPLINK® became operational and currently the databases of six city police departments (Anaheim, Brea, Garden Grove, Irvine, Newport Beach, and Orange) and the Orange County Superior Court are the source of selected data extracted to this system. Six other police departments (Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, Placentia, Tustin, and Westminster) use available COPLINK® data but do not yet share their respective departmental data. The COPLINK® System Use Policy has been signed by Police Chiefs from all 21 city police departments and by the Superior Court. 5.2.2 Phase 2 Buena Park, Fullerton, Placentia, and Westminster are conducting tests to enable data sharing. The West Covina Police Department is working to ensure compatibility between COPLINK® and their West Covina Services Group’s database that includes RMS information for Cypress, Fountain Valley, La Habra, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Laguna Beach, Seal Beach and Tustin. Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, and the Probation Department are working to prepare for eventual compatibility with COPLINK®. 5.3 County Non-Participation in COPLINK® The Probation Department has taken positive actions to eventually use COPLINK®; ( however, other County agencies, including the OCSD representing 12 contract cities and unincorporated areas), have elected not to participate. Several issues were City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? suggested to the Grand Jury. The most significant of these issues and the Grand Jury evaluations follow: 5.3.1 Governance County Issue: The County Executive Office (CEO) and the OCSD preferred that OCILJ be governed using a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) rather than a JPA. Grand Jury evaluation: • The selection of the JPA governance model was based, at least in part, on the opinions from non-county sources (with experience in criminal justice integration) that a governance model must be formalized to avoid the impact of periodic changes in factors such as personnel, leadership, and funding. • No county agencies have formally endorsed the JPA governance model. • The proposed JPA that included county agency participation has been stalled since being removed from the Board of Supervisors’ agenda for December 10, 2002. • The Orange County Chiefs’ & Sheriff’s Association, the OCILJ Steering Committee, and the Orange County City Managers’ Association have endorsed the JPA governance model. Santa Ana adopted the 2002 proposed JPA, and, as of February 9, 2006, four cities had signed the currently proposed JPA that does not include county agencies. • There is a sense of urgency because of concerns about funding for maintenance and support of OCILJ systems. These concerns arise because of a lack of governance. 5.3.2 Cost Estimates County Issue 1: Estimates of what COPLINK®-related costs would be and how they might possibly be allocated to the criminal justice agencies within Orange County were not available. Grand Jury evaluation: On October 21, 2005, Deloitte Consulting LLP provided a preliminary operating budget, including allocation estimates dependent on participation or non-participation by county criminal justice agencies. County Issue 2: The OCSD would have to pass COPLINK®-related costs to the contract cities and the cities would be reluctant to see fee increases. Grand Jury evaluation: • The preliminary budget provided by Deloitte Consulting LLP estimates an annual cost for 2006-2010 participation of the 12 contract cities and unincorporated areas policed by the OCSD. The maximum annual total % of the OCSD’s 2004/2005 total budget of more than $500 million and 5% of the information technology budget. • In a comparison study of information technology costs for Sheriff’s Departments in the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside, MTG Management Consultants LLC made the following findings/conclusions: o Only a “very few” information technology costs for providing county-wide law enforcement and criminal justice information are passed to independent city agencies. o The OCSD’s cost allocation approach to these city agencies was consistent with the other Sheriff’s Departments. County Issue 3: During interviews, preference was expressed that city managers, rather than city police department representatives, should sign the COPLINK® System Use Policy to reduce the possibility of future budget commitment issues. Grand Jury evaluation: The Orange County City Managers’ Association has two voting members on the OCILJ Steering Committee through which signatures were obtained. 5.3.3 Legal County Issue 1: County Counsel’s office and the OCSD expressed concerns that COPLINK® did not meet California Department of Justice (DOJ) requirements for the sharing of criminal history data (criminal history data is a specific type of criminal justice information). Grand Jury evaluation: • The OCILJ Steering Committee has no plan to access criminal history data via COPLINK®. • County agency criminal justice information extracted for COPLINK® access is controlled by the respective agencies - i.e., criminal history data would not be included in the extracted data. • In San Diego County, an ARJIS “privacy attorney” and Privacy Impact Assessments are used to address issues that arise about access to criminal history data. Because the need for criminal history data was identified as a low priority by investigators, COPLINK® as used in ARJIS does not access criminal history data. • Inquiry was made as to whether OCSD index information, intended for extraction to COPLINK®, constituted Summary Criminal History based on California DOJ standards. A state Deputy Attorney General City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? informally agreed with the initial DOJ assessment that the index information would not meet the state Penal Code definition of Summary Criminal History. County Issue 2: In a memorandum, the County Counsel’s office made recommendations concerning signing a contract to provide criminal history and contact information to COPLINK®. They also expressed concerns about the COPLINK® System Use Policy. Grand Jury evaluation: A proposed County contract with COPLINK® was not made available for review, however, the Grand Jury did review the signed October 4, 2005 COPLINK® System Use Policy which addresses concerns expressed by the County Counsel’s office. 5.3.4 Audit Trails County Issue: California has regulatory requirements related to the sharing of criminal history data. The requirements include the “need to know” prior to gaining access and the use/retention of audit trails, and COPLINK® does not meet these requirements. Grand Jury evaluation: Because criminal history data is not in COPLINK®, this is a non-issue. If criminal history data were eventually authorized for extraction to COPLINK®, the “need to know” requirement would be the same as for current processes using telephone or fax except that the COPLINK® audit trail would provide a stronger control than is currently available using telephone or fax. In addition, the COPLINK® System Use Policy addresses audit trail retention requirements. 5.4 Status Summary The status, as of February 2006, of Orange County government entities as related to topics within this report is summarized in a table titled “Status Summary” (see Appendix 9.3). The following is a brief description of the table’s column headings: • Government Entity - Includes the 34 Orange County cities of which 21 have city police departments; the unincorporated area of the county; county criminal justice agencies; and the Superior Court • Signed OCILJ - An “X” indicates a government entity that signed the 1999 Orange County Law & Justice System MOA • JPA Status - Indicates whether an entity: o has “adopted” (signed) at least one of the proposed JPAs o has “scheduled” a date for City Council consideration o is “working” to establish a schedule to consider adoption of the JPA cities which contract with the OCSD for law enforcement services • Signed COPLINK® Policy - An “X” indicates an entity that has signed the RMS/CMS Information Sharing COPLINK® System Use Policy, dated October 4, 2005 • COPLINK® Implementation: Indicates if an entity is: o “sharing” by extracting data to include in COPLINK® o “using” (accessing) available COPLINK® data, but not yet sharing data o “testing” the extraction process to enable data sharing o “integrating” to provide compatibility between COPLINK® and the entity’s RMS database which is processed by the West Covina Services Group of the West Covina Police Department o “working” to prepare for eventual compatibility with COPLINK® 5.5 General Observation This study suggests that the county issues given for not approving the JPA governance model and not participating in the OCILJ-sponsored RMS/CMS sharing have been addressed and that county agencies such as the OCSD, the CEO, and the County Counsel’s office should review and reconsider the OCILJ effort to enact a JPA and to share RMS/CMS data via the Internet-based product selected by the OCILJ Steering Committee.

Findings In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 6.1 County agencies have not signed an Integrated Law & Justice Joint Powers Agreement: The County Executive Office and the OCSD have not supported a JPA model for governing the Integrated Law & Justice effort within Orange County. 6.2 County criminal justice agencies do not participate in sharing and using critical criminal justice information: Although information made available through COPLINK® would enhance the safety of the public and law City Cops are Sharing Information – Why not the County? enforcement officers, the OCSD, the Probation Department, and the District Attorney are not currently sharing or using information via COPLINK®. Responses to Findings 6.1 and 6.2 are required from the Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Finding 6.2 is required from the District Attorney. Responses to Findings 6.1 and 6.2 are requested from the CEO. Response to Finding 6.2 is requested from the Probation Department.

Recommendations In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 7.1 County inclusion in a JPA: The County Executive Office and the OCSD should reconsider and revisit the issue of becoming listed members of a JPA for Integrated Law & Justice by the second quarter 2006. (See Finding 6.1.) 7.2 County participation in COPLINK®: The OCSD, the Probation Department, and the District Attorney should determine whether the concerns given for not participating in COPLINK® still exist and if not, reconsider their participation in COPLINK® by the fourth quarter, 2006. (See Finding 6.2.) Responses to Recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 are required from the Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Response to Recommendation 7.2 is required from the District Attorney. Responses to Recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 are requested from the CEO. Response to Recommendation 7.2 is requested from the Probation Department. . Acknowledgements The Grand Jury acknowledges the criminal justice information sharing efforts of the OCILJ Steering Committee, and especially the initiative shown in the sharing of RMS/CMS data. The Grand Jury also acknowledges the efforts of the City of Newport Beach for demonstrated support of the OCILJ and the efforts of the Probation Department to eventually participate using COPLINK®. The Grand Jury also thanks the agencies that participated in this study for their support and open attitudes.