County of Sacramento County Administration Building*

R1

Adopt this report as Sacramento County's response to recommendations contained in the 2012-13 Grand Jury Final Report. 2. Direct the Clerk of the Board to forward a copy of this report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court no later than September 25, 2013. Measures/Evaluation Not applicable. Fiscal Impact Staff from the Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney's Office and the County Executive Office contributed to this report. Costs incurred were absorbed within each department's budget. <b>BACKGROUND</b> Each year the Sacramento County Grand Jury concludes its work and releases its Final Report, typically the last week in June. The report, which can address a variety of activities, functions, and responsibilities of government, typically contains findings and recommendations with a response specifically directed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The form of the County's responses as required by law is as follows: As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding. Response To The 212-13 Grand Jury Final Report 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. 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. 2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. 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 discussion by the officer or head 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 months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation. If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. <b>DISCUSSION</b> The 2012-13 Grand Jury Final Report contained one investigative report on an issue pertaining to the County. The report, "Deputy-Involved Shootings Sacramento County Sheriff's Department", required county responses from the Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney, the Office of the Inspector General and the County Board of Supervisors. The Grand Jury Report requested a response by September 28, 2013 however the Sheriff and District Attorney responses were due , rather than 90 days, of the Grand Jury submitting its final report to the presiding judge and have therefore already been submitted to the presiding judge. The Sheriff and District Attorney responses are included as attachments to this letter. In addition, the position of Inspector General is currently vacant therefore no response is included from that office. Deputy-Involved Shootings Sacramento County Sheriff's Department

R2

The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff consider restoring the use-of-force review process in the Department with a specific focus on the identification of behavior, policy Response To The 212-13 Grand Jury Final Report and tactical issues and the "lessons learned". The Grand Jury further recommends the review panel include both tactical and training staff. Sheriff Response: The Sheriff sent his response to the presiding judge in a separate correspondence per Penal Code section 933(c). The response has been included as part of this report as Attachment 2.

R3

The Grand Jury recommends that the Inspector General adopt a more proactive review of deputy-involved shooting incidents, beyond simply reviewing the findings of the Department's internal investigation. Rather, the Inspector General should review each incident with the goal of communicating "lessons learned" to the Department. Sheriff Response: The Sheriff sent his response to the Presiding Judge in a separate correspondence per Penal Code section 933(c). The response has been included as part of this report as Attachment 2.

R4

The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff initiate a review of the orders and policies concerning the use-of-force and deadly force, and revise those orders as appropriate and legally competent to specifically address the topics that are not addressed in the current policies (e.g., shooting at a moving vehicle). The Grand Jury further recommends the Sheriff consider the inclusion of use-of-force policy in tactical and firearms training courses developed and presented in the department. Sheriff Response: The Sheriff sent his response to the presiding judge in a separate correspondence per Penal Code section 933(c). The response has been included as part of this report as Attachment 2. Response To The 212-13 Grand Jury Final Report <b>FINANCIAL ANALYSIS</b> Staff from the Sheriff's Department, the District Attorney's Office and the County Executive's Office contributed to this report. Costs incurred were absorbed within each department's budget. Respectfully submitted, NAVDEEP S. GILL Assistant County Executive Attachments: Attachment 1 – District Attorney Response to 2012-13 Grand Jury Report Attachment 2 – Sheriff Response to 2012-13 Grand Jury Report . Agenda Date: September 10, 2013 Attachment 1 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CYNTHIA G. BESEMER SACRAMENTO COUNTY Chief Deputy JAN SCULLY ALBERT C. LOCHER District Attorney Assistant District Attorney August 26, 2013 Honorable Laurie Earl, Presiding Judge Sacramento Superior Court 720 Ninth Street, Department 47 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Sacramento County Grand Jury Consolidated Final Report 2012-2013 Dear Judge Earl: This letter will serve as my comment pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 concerning the June 28, 2013 Grand Jury report, the particular portion of the report entitled, "INVESTIGATION: Deputy-Involved Shootings, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department," (pages 21-30), specifically Finding 1 and Recommendation 1. As part of its investigation and review of deputy-involved shootings, the Grand Jury report recounts that before July 2011, my office investigated and reviewed each officer-involved shooting within the county. In June 2011, due to budget cuts and staffing reductions, I announced my office would discontinue the practice. Reviewing the history of deputy-involved shootings in 2012, the Grand Jury made four findings and recommendations. The ones pertinent to the District Attorney's Office were: