Implementation of E-Subpoena system

Recommendations 10

• R1
  LADOT agrees with the conclusion, but the reason for the waiting period is explained below. The particular case reviewed by the CGJ involved a dormant file, originally submitted (albeit incomplete) in 2008. One of the two blocks was verified in 2009 after a complete application was received and LADOT delayed implementation of both blocks pending verification of the second block. When the second block could not be verified, sign installation for the first block was approved in 2010 and all affected residents were notified. A counter-petition was received and verified before signs were installed, therefore the installation was cancelled.
• R2
  LADOT agrees with the recommendation, but will not implement in the foreseeable future due to budgetary and staff constraints. ### September 27,2011 2 Re loj4jJl ,-lei Los BOARD OF FIRE CITY OF ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONERS CALIFORNIA BRIAN L. CUMMINGS GENETHIA HUDLEY·HAYES FIRE CHIEF PRESIDENT CASIMIRO U. TOLENTINO 200 NORTH MAIN STREET VICE PRESIDENT LOS ANGELES. CA 90012 DIANA M. BONTA (213) 97&3800 ANDREW FRIEDMAN FAX: (213) 97&3815 JILL FURILLO HITP://WWW.LAFD.ORG LETICIA GOMEZ ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT I MAYOR September 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: RESPONSE TO THE FINAL 2010-2011 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS (e-Subpoena) The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report puts forth a number of recommendations related to the implementation of a computerized automated system (e-Subpoena) to manage the issuance and tracking of subpoenas issued by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office to law enforcement agencies throughout the county of Los Angeles. The Final Report of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report identifies the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) as one of the agencies required to provide a written response to Recommendation number one (1) of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report. Recommendation number one (1) reads as follows: "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly." The finding of an internal LAFD assessment of the implementation of the e-Subpoena program suggest that the implementation of the e-Subpoena program is not feasible at this time due to limited financial resources and additional staffing requirements. AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Los Angeles County Superior Court September 27,2011 of2 The LAFD estimated the following financial expenditures in order to implement e-Subpoena: 1. Roughly $75,000 to $100,000 is required to procure new hardware, software and network equipment to operate an in-house e-Subpoena application. 2. Approximately $80,000 to $90,000 would also be required to procure the additional Microsoft Active Directory (AD) licenses to provide e-mail licenses to LAFD members who do n'ot have a department issued e-mail account. 3. Two to three additional positions would be needed to meet the minimum staffing needs required to manage and support the e-Subpoena program. Although the LAFD cannot implement the e-Subpoena program at this time due to the current fiscal constraints, it recognizes the value and efficiencies derived from the use of a program such as e-Subpoena and will look into the implementation and deployment of e-Subpoena in the near future. ( Sincerely, -...,,:::~- l754-281)6 Anthony Wong www.d.monterey-pork.C8.US October 7, 2011 CITY CLERK David Barron The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon . CITY TREASURER Presiding Judge Joseph leon Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: GRAND JURY REPORT COVER LETTER DATED JUNE 23, 2011 Dear Judge Edmon: The City received a copy of the undated Grand Jury Report entitled "Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County" at the end ofJune 2011 (the "Report"). The Report n3,quested that the City re¢pond~otw() recolTlmendati0rls: . 1'1. [ThClt]Monterey Park's City CbuncilCldoptpolicieslofully'fund the ARC for bpth the MMRP and OPEB retirementbenefif plans for empl()yees in' order. to ensure future funding of benefits and earn hwestment income .. which would discount the annual required contributions. 2. [That] Monterey Park's City Council direct its City management to explore alternatives for reducing retirement benefit costs, including possible additional revisions to the amount of the employee contribution pick up paid by the City and alternative employee cost sharing arrangements for retiree health benefits." This letter responds to these recommendations in accordance with Penal Code § ­ 933(c)(d). Please note that the City identified many factual errors in the Report pertaining to" Monterey Park. While the City respectfully declines to identify each of these, it does acknowledge that (like most cities in California) the City must continue acting to address the ever,e~panding retirememfobligCltionsincurred by the City. As you are aware, these obligations were generally negotiated between tlie CitY and its· pUblic· employees over the COl)rse of.many years. While these obligations continue to increase in cost, the econ,omic downturn - .and re~ulting decrease ih public revenue - threatens the ability of every public agency in California to pay for such obligations. ' Grand Jury Report Cover Letter Dated June 23, 2011 Long before the Grand Jury issued the Report, the City Council recognized that the City must decrease its expenses as to public benefits. Consequently, it directed the City Manager to take a number of austerity measures to help balance the competing demands of public employee benefits with taxpayer interests of improving the community. Toward that goal, the City Council negotiated several issues with its employees. Listed below are several matters the City has negotiated with three of the five bargaining units st that took effect on October 1 (the Police and Fire units do not come due until June 30, 2012). Steps taken: 1) Created a second tier of retirement. Lowering the 2.7% @ 55 to 2.5% @ 55 for new non-safety employees. 2) Requiring all non-safety employees to pick up 100% of the employee's portion of the PERS contribution. (Currently 8%) 3) Eliminating OPEB benefits for all new hires, and investigative studies of a VEBA or 115 Trust account for both current employees and new hires. 4) Lowering of caps of sick time, vacation time and administrative leave time on all employees. Also agreeing to forgo any cash outs during the next 12 months of the new MOUs. 5) Adding an additional $500,000 annually towards the OPES ARC. While these actions do not completely cure the problem, they are certainly a step in the right direction. In a difficult economy, all sides mutually worked together to find solutions to the City's long term structural obligations. Should you have any further questions or follow up, please do not hesitate to contact me. POLICE DEPARTMENT Cllty ofM~tatll Beach 420 t5~Sired MANHATIAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266 f;HO) S02-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R. IRVINE CmEFOFPOLK:E August 4, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, Ca. 90012 Dear Presiding Judge: We recently received the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury RepOlt. The report makes the recommendation that the City of Manhattan Beach Police Department implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure. In addition, the report recommends the City Attorney / City Prosecutor utilize the e-Subpoena system in locations wherein the police department is using the system. I have reviewed the report and agree that the e-Subpoena system could benefit our Department in the area of cost savings and improved efficiency. As a result of the Grand Jury recommendation, I have instructed my staff to begin an analysis of the e­ Subpoena program to determine whether we should implement the program here at the Manhattan Beach Police Department. I have asked that the review be completed of the date of the Grand Jury report. This analysis and implementation review is to be completed by December 30, 2011. I want to thank you for bringing this new e-Subpoena program to my attention and I will be anxiously awaiting the results of our analysis of this program. CHIEF OF POLICE POLICE DEPARTMENT City of Manhattan Beach 420 15th Street MANHATIAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 802-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R. IRVINE CHIEFOF POLICE January 31, 2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Alf Schonbach, Foreperson Clara Shortridge-Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012 Dear Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury: We received your request for a copy of our response to the recommendations of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report. We reviewed our file and determined that we had sent the response to the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 4,2011, as instructed in the original request from the Civil Grand Jury. Apparently the response never made it to you. I am including a copy of the original response that was mailed last August 2011. If you need anything further please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you, EVE R. IRVINE CHIEF OF POLICE "Policing through Partnerships" City ofManhattan Beach Web Site: www.citymb.info Monrovia Police Department Grand Jury Response High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age By Captain Alan Sanvictores
• R3
  LASD and LAPD evaluate electronically transmitting other documents such as police reports andprobable cause determinations among law enforcement agencies, . prosecutors and the Court. LAPD's Response: Th.e Department agrees with the finding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The recommendation requires changes in the long standing procedures at the courts, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and LAPD. The Department is presently investigating the possibility ofproviding more services in six to twelve months to the public and other law enforcement agencies electronically. These include electronic filing and requesting of police reports, electronic case filing with the Offices of the District Attorney and City Attorney and systems to notify detectives of results from fingerprint and other forensic investigations. These projects are in the early stages of development and in many cases will require cooperation or joint development with various agencies and municipalities, Docunlellts such as Probable Cause Determinations calIDot be electronically distributed sim:e the Courts require the original report.. . , ·-i AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER www.LAPOOnfine.org www.joinLAPO.com The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon 1.14 Hi-Tech Forensics
• R4
  City of Bell Police Department 19. City of Manhattan Beach Police Department
• R5
  City of Bell Gardens Police Department 20. City of Monrovia Police Department
• R6
  City of Beverly Hills Police 21. City of Monterey Park Police Department Department
• R7
  City of Burbank Police Department 22. City of Pasadena Police Department
• R8
  Establish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." This will facilitate: i. Promotions and career opportunities for those who are trained and skilled in this area without having to leave the discipline ii. Succession planning and transfer ofhigh tech expertise, preserving the investment made in creating the expertise The Culver City Police Department is a participating agency in the West Side Regional High Tech Task Force. This task force is hosted by the Beverly Hills Police Department 4040 DUQUESNE AVENUE • CULYERCITY • CALIFORNIA 90232-2882 From:Guler City Pol ice Dept - Det. 3102536115 01/31/2012 16:00 #189 P.003/003 POLICE DEPARTMENT IN\'ESTIGATIONS BUREAU CITY OF CULVER CITY (31O) 253-6300 FAX (310) 253-6115 DONALD PEDERSEN Chief of Police and is made up ofinvestigators from the Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City Police Departments; as well as the Los Angeles County Sherriff's Department and the United States Secret Service. We provide one Culver City investigator to the task force who works in such capacity on a part-time basis. Working in conjunction with the task force, our investigator is able to facilitate all ofour high tech investigative needs. Because ofthis, and in light ofour current fiscal situation, the establishment of a High Tech Forensics Bureau would be neither reasonable nor responsible. b. Update regular law enforcement recruit and detective training to include orientation, procedures, protocol, and other training with respect to digital evidence c. Include training in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training Our High Tech investigator is currently creating in-house training materials that, when completed, will address all ofthe above recommendations. Roll call training and other High Tech issues are provided and addressed by our investigator. We also have access to High Tech training through the West Side Regional High Tech Task Force as needed. As a department, we regularly send officers and investigators to formal High Tech training courses provided by POST and other training sources. d. Take steps to acquire POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic examiners and cyber investigators to allow for reimbursement ofthe costs Being as we have accesses to the aforementioned training opportunities, the Culver City Police Department does not provide formal High Tech training. Feel free to contact the undersigned ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, {1~1 ['I' rol2- Scott/i.;b:; Assistant ChieforPolice SB/JW/js 4040 DUQUESNE AVENUE • CULVER CITY • CALIFORNIA • 90232-2882 From:Culer City Pol ice Dept - Det. 3102536115 01/31/2012 15:59 #189 P.001/003 CITY OF CULVER CITY CULVER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: 01/31/12 To: Name ............................................ . Natalie Organization ................................ .. Civil Grand JUry Location ....................................... .. (213) 229...2595 Fax # .............................................. From: Name ............................................ . Sgt. J. Sims #836 Organization ................................ .. Culver City Police Department Locatiou ........................................ . Culver California 90232 (310) 253·6115 Detectives Fax # ............................................. . Return Phone # ............................. . (310) 253-6306 Number ofpages:t.~;.,.:~~.~.;{yincluding cover sheet) .,-\";"" Special Instructions Culver City Police Department 4040 Duquesne Avenue Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone (310) 837-1221 Fax (310) 253-6115 - Detectives Fax (310) 253-6117 - Records FUTURE UNLIMITED ----~ Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 Your Honor, In June, 2011, The Downey Police Department received a copy of the County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury report detailing their investigation into the "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" within Los Angeles County. Per California Penal Code section 933, The City of Downey and The Downey Police Department are responding to the report. Upon reviewing the grand jury's investigation, we conclude the following sections applied directly to The Downey Police Department; 2a, 2b, 2c, and section 2d. We concur with the findings of the Grand Jury in these specific sections. fi Sincerely, ! \ I ~7~ Marque{~ Rick Esteves, Chief of Police Luis H. Downey Police Department City of Downey 562-904-2301 562-904-7274 ------------POLICE DEPARTMENT 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE ---P-O-ST- O-F-FI-CE- B-O-X- 7-01-6 -----n(-'\\-hlM-l-::V- C-ALIFORNIA 90241-7016 -------------~----------- ..---­ GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 1718 W. 162nd Street • Gardena, CA 90247 Phone (310) 217-9600 • Fax (310) 217-9638 August 31,2011 REF: 11-176 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Presiding Judge: The Gardena Police Department has reviewed the e-Subpoena material provided to the Department by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. As the respondent, we agree with the Grand Jury Reports and will establish a timeline for e-Subpoena implementation. A study of our current procedures showed execution of the system would be both feasible and beneficial to the Department. Currently, the District Attorney's Office and the Public Defender use paper printed subpoenas. The subpoenas are picked up at the Torrance Court and brought back to the Department for logging, and distribution to our personnel and witnesses. There are some instances where we receive subpoenas via FAX or U.S. mail. These subpoenas are also logged in by our subpoena control police assistant, and then physically distributed to our personnel and civil witnesses. The use of the e-Subpoena system would greatly enhance our ability to get our personnel served in a timelier manner. The system also provides a greater amount of accountability in the proof of service, by complete logging of delivery and receipt. Once in use, the e-Subpoena system would eliminate the need for our subpoena control police assistant to track and deliver court summons to our officers. The subpoena control police assistant would still be needed for the tracking and the delivery of printed subpoenas to civilian witnesses and victims. The system does require some interfacing with current IT systems. We spoke with representatives of the Inglewood Police Department and the Culver City Police Department; both agencies are currently using the system. In both instances they spoke very highly of the system and the ease of implementation through an outside vendor, WEBIPLEX in Newport Beach, CA. Service with Pride and Professionalism. II If Should you require further information, please contact Sergeant Russ Temple, Gardena Police Department Detective Bureau, at (310) 217-9636. Sincerely, Edward Medrano Chief of Police f , CITY OF GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 150 SOUTH GLENDORA AVE., (626) 914-8250 GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA 91741-3498 FAX # (626) 963-2154 ROBERT M. CASTRO, CHIEF OF POLICE June 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves as the Glendora Police Department's response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury report for "eSubpoena". As to recommendation #1, "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost-saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly," We agree with the fmding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Since the Glendora Police Department is a small department without dedicated subpoena control officers on staff, we will coordinate with the LA DA office to develop an e-subpoena application in-house, rather than incurring the additional software purchase and maintenance costs associated with a third-party solution which may offset the benefit of the recommendation. Our timeframe for implementation is within 1 year from the date ofthis mailing. Please contact me at 626-914-8262 with any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Robert M. Castro Chief of Police o P RID E F THE FOOTHILLS CITY OF GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 150 SOUTH GLENDORA AVE., (626) 914·8250 GLENDORA, CALIFORNIA 91741·3498 FAX # (626) 963-2154 ROBERT M. CASTRO, CHIEF OF POLICE June 27,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210 To Whom It May Concern: This letter serves as the Glendora Police Department's response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury report for "eSubpoena". As to recommendation #1, "Implement e-Subpoena as a cost-saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) DA subpoenas quarterly." We agree with the fmding. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Since the Glendora Police Department is a small department without dedicated subpoena control officers on staff, we will coordinate with the LA DA office to develop an e-subpoena application in-house, rather than incurring the additional software purchase and maintenance costs associated with a third-party solution which may offset the benefit ofthe recommendation. OUf timeframe for implementation is within 1 year from the date ofthis mailing. Please contact me at 626-914-8262 with any questions. Sincerely, 1fUrf~ Robert M. Castro Chief of Police P RID E o F THE FOOTHILLS CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 131 North Isabel Street Police Department Glendale, California 912064382 Office of the Chief of Police (818) 548-3140 www.ci.glendale.ca.us November 23,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11:"506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations Dear Presiding Judge, On June 23, 2011, the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury made the following recommendations to the Glendale Police Department: 1) Implement e-Subpoena as a cost saving and operational efficiency measure, and 2) Establish a High Tech Forensics Bureau. I have. considered these recommendations. I understand the need in law enforcement to provide prosecutorial and defense agencies with an automated means to serve law enforcement officers and I also recognize the value to crime fighting oftraining our personnel in high tech forensics. Presently, our ability to implement e-Subpoena and create a High Tech Forensics Bureau is hampered by dramatic cuts over the last three years in the City of Glendale Police Department's budget, along with a significant reduction in our staffing of sworn positions. As a result, we are fiscally unable to consider implementing these recommendations at this time absent a funding source. Ronald L. DePompa Chief ofPolice RLD: rsb C: Mr. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury o WE RECYCLE CITY OF INGLEWOOD One W. Manchester Boulevard, Suite 860, Inglewood, CA 90301#1750 Office ofthe City .Jlttorney Tel: (310) 412~8672 Cal P. Saunders Fax: (310) 412~8865 www.cityofinglewood.org City Attorney November 29, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Comt Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: E-Subpoena Dear Presiding Judge:
• R9
  City of Culver City Police Department 24. City of San Fernando Police Department
• R13
  City of I-!untington Park Police Department 27. City of Torrance Police Department