📋
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.

Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Classification Process Interview and Criminal Background Check The mission of the Classification Unit is to interview

Published: September 17, 2001 40 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 9 findings

F1 Page 207
Booking sheet and money envelope not aligned for easy handling. (See sample in Squad Room.)
F2 Page 207
Prisoner’s name and AJIS number omitted from the money envelope.
F3 Page 207
Prisoners not properly searched, and contraband in their possession.
F4 Page 207
Open cigarettes, packages of matches and butane lighters in with the property.
F5 Page 207
Loose money in with the property.
F6 Page 207
Foreign money not listed. (Any negotiable money to be listed.)
F7 Page 207
Money amount on booking sheet and money amount on money envelope differ.
F8 Page 207
No wrist band, or on the wrong wrist (should be left on wrist.)
F9 Page 207
AJIS number on wrist band and booking sheet differ. II-10 From the 31 agencies visited, a booking slip sample size of 137 was pulled and analyzed for compliance to procedures. Exhibit 2 summarizes the findings from that review. (EXHIBIT 2) PERSONAL PROPERTY AGENCY REVIEW Booking Slip Issues Unique Policy Provisions eziS elpmaS no atad esaeler oN pils gnikoob tsil yrotnevni oN elinevuj ro deF .edam .stserra ton yrotnevni lautcA nekat pils gnikoob licneP htiw eerga ton seod esabatad ycilop nettirw oN rof sedivorp yciloP demialcnu gnilles smeti ytilicaf ta stserra oN demialcnu yortseD ycilop ytreporp seicilop tnuoc hsaC Alhambra 5 5 5 Bell 5 1 Beverly Hills 5 x 90 days Always 2 officers Burbank 5 1 x Culver City 5 5 >$100=2 officers Downey 7 5 3 El Monte 5 Gardena Hawthorne 4 4 x Hermosa Beach 5 Huntington Park 7 2 x Inglewood 5 Irwindale 5 3 La Verne 5 5 1 x Manhattan Beach 6 6 >$50=video taped; >$100=watch commander verification San Marino 0 x Santa Monica 5 5 >$50=2 officers Sierra Madre 0 x Signal Hill 5 4 West Covina 5 x 180 days Los Angeles - Foothill 0 x Los Angeles - Hollenbeck 0 x Los Angeles - Pacific 5 5 Los Angeles - 77th St 5 5 Los Angeles - Van Nuys 5 5 Sheriff - Avalon 8 4 x Sheriff - Norwalk 5 Sheriff - Santa Clarita 5 Sheriff – Lomita 5 5 1 1 Sheriff – Walnut 5 x Sheriff - West Hollywood 5 Totals 137 48 5 3 25 0 0 0 Overall Error Percentage 35% 4% 2% 18% Comparison of intake inventory to release inventory To complete the tracing of information from the arresting agency to the final releasing agency, information from each booking slip was given to the Sheriff Department. Copies of the bath-sheet (inventory of property left with inmate during initial arrest), intake- inventory slip (inventory of property taken from inmate during initial arrest), and release report (inventory of property returned to inmate upon release), were requested for comparison of inmate inventory data between arresting agency and releasing agency. A cursory comparison was made with data received from the Sheriff and it was found that inconsistencies continued after transfer to Central County facilities. Many of the bookings were never transferred to Central County Facilities, even though the arresting agency’s records indicated a transfer occurred. The Sheriff Department within Los Angeles County utilizes a combination of an automated tracking system and hard copy documents. Personal property taken prior to the bath-sheet is input in the automated system. Personal property taken after bath-sheet inventory and bulk property are recorded on separate documents. This information is not input into the automated system. Discrepancies were noted with disposition of bulk property upon release or transfer of the inmate from Central County facility. In some instances property was identified as destroyed, on one screen, and shown as transferred to a State or Federal Institution on another screen. In summary, all agencies appear to have difficulty tracking bulk property. It was concluded that these discrepancies would be minimized if all agencies followed the same recording procedures and utilized the same databases for recording and tracking inmate movement and their property. Whereas the Municipal Police Agencies and Sheriff Stations use the same database for small personal property, there is no universal tracking system for bulk property. Furthermore, the State and Federal Institutions use separate tracking systems from Municipal Police Agencies and Sheriff Stations.

Recommendations 8