📋
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.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F6, F9, F10
Findings and Recommendations 8 findings
F1
We agree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
We agree with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
We partially disagree with this finding in that we believe there is sufficient record keeping currently available to allow for a comparison of response delays. For example each dispatch location which handles a call maintains at least a minimal record of when it was received, the type of call and how they handled it. A 911 call to the CHP for a fire in the Newcastle Fire District should have a record at CHP Sacramento or San Francisco showing it's receipt and another record at Placer County Sheriff's Dispatch showing it's receipt there. A comparison of these times would give a good example of any possible delays. We agree with the finding that consolidation of this function does result in better response times.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Auburn Police Department will send written notification of the final disposition of the complaint to the complaining party within thirty (30) days of the completion of the investigation in all future Citizen Complaint investigations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Lincoln Police Department adopt an appropriate standard and place it in Rule 1020.7, which relates to the Chief and Rule 1020.62, which relates to the recommendation of the investigator. As noted above in Finding #4(f), the Lincoln PD intends to address the "standard of proof" issue during the next contract negotiations with the intention of clarifying the applicable language to reflect the appropriate "preponderance of evidence" standard. However, for reasons explained above, such language will likely remain in the MOU rather than department policy. Moreover, because the assigned investigator is expected to remain as impartial as possible, it would be inappropriate for him/her to be attaching a legal "standard of proof" at the early phase of any potential disciplinary matter. It is generally the role of the assigned investigator to submit the factual evidence to the Chief who retains the ultimate authority and discretion to accept, modify or reject any recommendation of the investigator. The City agrees with the Grand Jury's recommendation (to all agencies) regarding the need for some sort of clarification within 1020.7. Since Penal Code 832.5(d)(2) and (3) provide statutory definitions for the dispositions of "unfounded" and "exonerated" complaints, the City will be adopting clarifying language under section 1020.7 to the effect that each disposition will now be defined as "When the investigation clearly discloses..." This will bring our policy in line with the relevant statute and provide additional guidance to involved personnel.
F5
The two clerical positions and the Account Clerk fall under different lines of supervision. Response: Agree with the finding. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court August 18, 2004
No recommendations for this finding
F7
- We agree with your finding regarding the absence of a sequential numbering system at the Lincoln Police Department. While the agency has always had the ability to retrieve any complaint by year and/or name of complaining party, it has always been my advice to agencies that a sequential numbering system is more efficient. Toward that end, it has been our recommendation and expectation that the Lincoln Police Department will be transitioning into this sort of filing system (e.g. 04-001, 04, 002, etc.).
No recommendations for this finding
F8
It is the policy of most law enforcement agencies to have the Watch Commander or supervisor (if the department doesn't have a specifically designated I.A. Officer) take the complaint. This policy is necessary due to a number of reasons, i.e.confidentiality requirements, and the fact these individuals have received specific training in this area. The California Police Officers' Association "Internal Affairs Manual" recommends this procedure. (See attachment) It is the policy of the Auburn Police Department to accept and investigate all complaints of misconduct of its officers, as it is believed necessary for a professional department and it also gains the respect and faith of the citizens they serve. Every effort will be made to ensure the complainant feels comfortable and not intimidated in anyway. 1215 Lincoln Way • Auburn, California 95603 103
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The department provides training for all I.A. Investigators and believes they possess the necessary knowledge to understand the burden of proof set forth in our policy. The department will, however, forward your finding to the law firm of Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, 1631 E 18th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705, who write our Policies and Procedures for the JPA the City belongs to, and we will discuss with them your recommendation and decide the appropriate action.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
See Finding #11 response. Sincerely, Micholas S. Willick Chief of Police NSW/dar 104 City Manager's Office incoln Gerald F. Johnson City Manager 916-645-4070 x211 Fax: 916-645-8903 August 10, 2004 INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
Additional Recommendations 6
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1We have obtained the emergency dispatch number from the Placer County Sheriffs Dispatch Center and will make it available to the public in our community as an alternative to 911 for cellular calls in this area. September 9, 2004 Placer County Grand Jury
-
R2We are one of the agencies who have already consolidated our dispatch services through the Placer County Sheriffs Office. As to the remainder of this recommendation we will continue to work through the various committees of which we are a part to attempt to resolve this problem. However, as a small local agency we have neither the power nor the revenue to implement a solution. Since this problem involves the State of California, various cities, counties and local agencies we can do little more than lend our support in its resolution. Further we have no "turf rights" issues that would prevent the district from taking action to provide the best possible service to citizens of our district. If you have any questions or require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Neil G. Anderson Chairman, Board of Directors 58
-
R3Placer County Law Enforcement Departments revise the form sent to a person who has lost an administrative hearing informing the person of a right to seek a further hearing in the superior court. Police Department response: The recommendation requires further analysis. During the hearing process reviews to be undertaken as described above, we will seek P.L.E.A. input on the desire to implement recommendation #3. Sincerely, Mark J. Siemens Chief of Police c: Foreperson of "C" Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 . . 115
-
R4Each department review the practices used by the reception personnel who provide complaint forms to citizens to ensure that unnecessary questions or requests that may be intimidating are eliminated. The complaining party be invited, but not required, to meet with a supervisor to discuss their complaint. Response: Concur. Complainants have the option of speaking with a supervisor in an effort to bring the complaint to an acceptable conclusion without a formal investigation.
-
R5All citizen complaint forms received, regardless of merit, be (1) logged in, assigned a case file number and (2) assigned for investigation. Upon investigation, the investigator may determine that the complaint is without merit and recommend a finding or disposition of "Unfounded" or "Frivolous." Concur with #1. A case file number will be assigned to a complaint Response: deemed frivolous as a more accurate method of tracking all citizen complaints. Do not concur with #2: The Sheriff's Department does not have an internal affairs unit. Complaint investigations are assigned to chain of command sergeants or lieutenants as part of their day-to-day duties. According to policy, the assigned investigator does not determine the disposition; only gathers the facts. The completed investigation is then reviewed by a lieutenant who determines the findings and makes recommendations and forwards to the captain for his review and recommendations. The completed investigation is 118 then forwarded to the Undersheriff for review, with final approval by the Sheriff. The frivolous category was created by the legislature to circumvent this time- consuming investigation process for complaints that are obviously without merit. The Undersheriff reviews each and every complaint received. No complaint is filed away without his review and determination. Categorizing a complaint as frivolous with no further action required allows the chain of command staff to focus their time and energies on the priority public safety operations of the department.
-
R9The Lincoln, Rocklin and Roseville Police Departments and the Placer County Sheriff's Department consider sending their officers who do the internal affairs investigations to the P.O.S.T. three-day course, Internal Affairs (Basic). Response: Concur I wish to thank the members of the 2003-2004 Placer County Grand Jury for their dedication to the community and for all of their hard work during the past year. Sincerely. Twan In Bowe Edward N. Bonner Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal c: Foreperson of the PC Grand Jury 11490 C Avenue Auburn CA 95603 119