Audit Committee

1 1 1 1 1 1 GRAND JURY COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Mission Statement The mission of the Grand Jury Communications Committee was to facilitate the flow of information from the grand jury to the public (sometimes through the Board of Supervisors) and from the public to the grand jury. The committee was also concerned with the flow of information within the grand jury. Goals Develop an ongoing publicity and public relations program designed to provide a consistent placement of news stories with all media, area wide and local. Integrate all committees' findings of cost-saving measures and reallocation of funds into a format which might be issued as an interim report on this subject or be included in the final report. Develop an orientation program for the incoming 1989-90 Grand Jury. Initiate a program designed to provide continuity from prior grand juries to incoming grand juries. Systemize the revision and refinement of current Grand Jury Guidelines. Committee Projects 1. The Communications Committee assisted other committees in the preparation and placement of news releases primarily on the subject of interim reports. 2. The goal of reporting cost-savings was thought to be a worthwhile endeavor in the beginning of the 1988-89 Grand Jury's term. In actuality, however, no significant areas of savings and/or reallocation of county funds were uncovered during the grand jury's investigations of various county departments. 1 3. The Communications Committee prepared agendas for incoming grand jury orientations. These programs were reviewed with the Superior Court Committee on Grand and Trial Juries before implementation. 4. The Communications Committee undertook the task of organizing and refining changes in the Grand Jury Guidelines prepared for the previous grand jury. These 17 revisions were the result of the agreement of the entire panel. This final document will be presented to the 1989-90 Grand Jury for its consideration. The 1988-89 Grand Jury continued the work of previous grand juries in examining 5. emergency procedures in the Criminal Courts Building. The Communications Committee arranged for a presentation to the full panel by Ron Fernstrom, Emergency Coordinator. Countywide plans for a major disaster such as an earthquake are well advanced and localized plans for a single building emergency are close to completion. Marshal Fernstrom felt that availability of advanced design field radios would complete equipment needed by his staff to work with any emergency situation. 6. Carpet and furniture in the grand jury hearing room have been in place since the Criminal Courts Building was completed in 1973. The grand jury quarters were painted approximately four years ago but the paint used was not washable. The Grand Jury came into dirty walls, shabby furniture and worn carpets. After research into sources of available funds, the panel approved a recommendation by the Communications Committee to make a formal request of the Superior Court to refurbish the grand jury quarters. This was approved and should be completed by the beginning of the term of the 1989-90 Grand Jury. Areas Investigated The Communications Committee was impressed by the audit of Grand Jury Operations conducted by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company for the 1981-82 Grand Jury. However, the handling of citizen complaints by the grand jury was not included in that audit. The Communications Committee thought that without such information, an understanding of the grand jury's "watch dog function" would be incomplete. The panel approved an audit of the processing of citizen complaints to be done by the contract auditor, Coopers & Lybrand. An executive summary of that study follows. GRAND JURY CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS PURPOSE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury directed Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a review of citizen complaint processing, subsequent follow-up, and resolution procedures by county agencies and the Grand Jury. The review was requested by the Grand Jury as a result of its desire to improve its effectiveness in processing citizen complaints and to improve its responsiveness to citizen concerns. FOCUS/ISSUE The 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury identified several issues related to the processing of citizen complaints and the subsequent follow-up by county agencies and the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury was concerned that citizen complaints were not being processed effectively and efficiently. BACKGROUND The Grand Jury is charged with the responsibility of investigating and reporting on the operations, accounts, and records of county officers, departments and functions. It also has the same responsibility for cities, joint power agencies, redevelopment agencies, school districts and special districts within the county. The general term for the Grand Jury's investigative and reporting responsibility is the "watchdog function." One of the tools available to the Grand Jury for fulfilling the watchdog function is the complaint process. Complaints are received by the Grand Jury through one of three sources: (1) law enforcement officials, (2) members of the Grand Jury, and (3) citizens or non-law enforcement county personnel. While there are clear guidelines and laws that govern a grand jury's responsibility to hear and investigate criminal complaints, the law is less clear on the grand jury's responsibility to respond to citizen complaints. The 1988-89 Grand Jury members feel that inherent in their "watchdog" function is the responsibility to be responsive to citizen complaints. However, succeeding grand juries are not required to be responsive to complaints. Each new grand jury determines how it will respond to citizen complaints. As a result, the continuity in responding to complaints between grand juries can be an issue. Each new grand jury must learn to follow-up on corrective actions promised by departments and agencies and decide how to process citizen complaints. Because they are inexperienced, new grand juries are more likely to concentrate on new citizen complaints rather than following-up on past complaints. In addition, because new grand jury members take a period of time to learn their roles and to form committees, the disposing of complaints inherited from the former grand jury is delayed. SCOPE OF TOPIC 1,1 The Grand Jury Communications Committee of the 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury requested that Coopers & Lybrand, as contract auditors, conduct a study of the processing of citizen complaints and the subsequent follow-up by county agencies and the grand jury. The study included an evaluation of the following areas: Timeliness of complaint processing through the grand jury. Timeliness, quality, and appropriateness of investigative agency responses. Availability of support staff to follow-up on complaint resolution between grand . jury sessions. Issues and agencies which have a high frequency of citizen complaints. • METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Coopers & Lybrand performed the following steps: Conducted interviews with 22 individuals associated with public and private • organizations throughout the county in order to determine the following information: Parameters for service level standards Workloads associated with processing citizen complaints Staffing requirements to provide adequate administrative staff in support of complaint processing and follow-up Mechanisms in place to have complaints reach the grand jury Opportunity for improving the processing and flow of complaints. Reviewed applicable sections of relevant documents to determine the grand jury's role in responding to citizen complaints as follows: California State Penal Code. Charge to the Grand Jury. Los Angeles Grand Jury Guidelines. Final Report to the 1981-82 Los Angeles County Grand Jury on the "Role and the Effectiveness of the Grand Jury," by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, January, 1982. Memo, dated October 17, 1988, to the current chairman of the Grand Jury Communications Committee regarding "Critical Review of Peat, Marwick & Mitchell Audit Report." Los Angeles Times article, "State Grand Juries Failing Civil Watchdog" Function," August 5, 1986. Reviewed information obtained from citizen complaint logs and files to determine the timeliness of citizen complaint processing as follows: Developed a matrix of key data elements necessary to evaluate the timeliness of complaint processing. Obtained assistance from members of the Grand Jury Communications Committee to gather the data and complete the matrix. Prepared flow charts of the processing requirements for a complaint within the grand jury's operations as follows: Evaluated procedures in Los Angeles County Grand Jury Guidelines. Interviewed the Grand Jury foreman, committee chairs, staff secretary, and legal advisor to document the current grand jury's citizen complaint process. FINDINGS The 1988-89 Grand Jury citizen complaint process has worked effectively in receiving, responding to and tracking complaints. During our interviews, we found that the current Grand Jury has provided timely and appropriate responses to citizens submitting complaints. However, improvements can be made in the complaint process related to the following areas: Initiating a complaint form 0 Tracking, reporting, and disposing of complaints Increasing complaint volume Maintaining continuity of complaint handling from one grand jury to the next 0 Categorizing citizen complaints All grand jury citizen complaints must be written. Most are letters which are often difficult to interpret. In this connection, the feasibility of providing a standardized complaint form was investigated. A complaint form would be simpler for complainants to use because it would help complainants to focus on specific information regarding the complaint. In addition, complaint forms are easier to complete than letters are to write. Citizen complaint tracking information is available only on a limited basis from the complaint log maintained by the staff secretary. However, more detailed tracking and status information could be maintained by summarizing information reported in the minutes of grand jury panel sessions. Committees and the foreman often respond to and close complaints before the disposition is presented to the grand jury panel. This expedites the complaint handling process at the expense of a majority vote of the full grand jury panel. Present members of the grand jury feel the number of complaints received is low and an effort should be made to improve citizen access to the complaint process. Seventy- four citizen complaints were received by the 1987-88 Grand Jury. The 1988-89 Grand Jury is expecting to receive approximately the same number. BedydolynaMetassassass Manager M 21 The continuity of the grand jury's investigative process breaks down between grand jury sessions. New grand juries have only the prior grand jury reports and some limited informal contacts to provide them with the status of citizen complaints. As the term of the grand jury approaches the end of its year, the grand jury finds it difficult because of time constraints to investigate citizen complaints and follow-up on investigative agency responses. The grand jury does not have a method of identifying trends in citizen complaints other than relying on the administrative staff's or the legal advisor's prior experience. The ability to identify trends would allow the grand jury to identify issues and agencies which are the subjects of a significant number of citizen complaints and which should be investigated further. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that a form be created and made available for 1. citizen complaints to the Grand Jury. See Exhibit A — Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form. All complaints to the Grand Jury must be in writing. The use of a citizen complaint form would offer citizens an alternative to submitting a letter and would guide them in providing relevant facts regarding their complaints. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the final disposition of each citizen complaint be made by the Grand Jury as a panel. Committees will review, discuss, and investigate complaints, as necessary, and recommend the complaint disposition to the panel. The Grand Jury panel will have the opportunity to discuss and challenge the recommendation and make the final decision. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the tracking and reporting of citizen complaints be improved by establishing a complaint log to be maintained by the Grand Jury secretary. See Exhibit B — Grand Jury Panel Citizen Complaint Log. The new log would be in addition to the log maintained by the staff secretary and would be used to summarize complaint information entered into panel minutes. The new log will provide grand jury members access to the status of complaints that are not assigned to their committees. The Grand Jury recommends that targeted performance standards be 4. established for handling citizen complaints. The targeted standard for receiving, investigating and disposing of a citizen complaint will be eight weeks. The Grand Jury foreman will be responsible for following up on complaint to ensure timely processing. The Grand Jury recommends that procedures be established to follow-up 5. corrective actions related to certain citizen complaints promised by outside agencies. The foreman, using information from committee chairs, should prepare a list of such promised actions and the responsible agency, department or 22 commission performing the follow-up review. The list should be passed on to succeeding grand juries to provide continuity and to ensure promised actions are completed. The Grand Jury recommends that information related to active citizen 6. complaints received by a grand jury be formally passed to the succeeding grand jury. This will help to ensure the continuity of citizen complaint investigations during the transition of grand jury panels. The Grand Jury recommends that a temporary citizens complaint committee 7. be established early in a grand jury's term. The temporary committee will process complaints until permanent committees can be established. The Grand Jury recommends the establishment of a categorized complaint file 8. so long term problem trends, developed over multiple grand jury sessions, can be highlighted through periodic review of the file by grand jurors. The Grand Jury foreman will be responsible for determining which citizen complaints should be copied and placed in the file. The Grand Jury recommends that periodic press releases be distributed to 9. publicize its "watchdog" function and the citizen complaint process. The press releases will serve to increase public awareness of a grand jury and inform citizens of its function and responsibilities. 10. The Grand Jury recommends that a flow chart of the citizen complaint process be incorporated into the Los Angeles County Grand Jury Guidelines' description of the citizen complaint process. The flow chart will supplement the written description of the process and will visually explain the complaint process to new jurors. 11. The Grand Jury recommends that complaint processing within the grand jury operations be improved by eliminating an unnecessary step. The foreman, after initialling his approval of complaint correspondence should forward the complaint directly to the staff secretary for typing instead of returning it to the originating committee. See Exhibit D -- Proposed Flow of Citizen Complaint Process. This will eliminate redundant reviews and additional delays in providing responses to complainants. APPENDIX (The Appendix for the contract audit report is not included below.) DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company audit report on 1981-82 Grand Jury PERSONS INTERVIEWED Juanita Blankenship, Assistant Director, Office of Juror Management, Los Angeles Superior Court William Wallace, Grand Jury Coordinator, Office of Juror Management, Los Angeles Superior Court Pam Everett, Assistant Director, Public Affairs, Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office Gene Hall, Assistant Division Chief, Printing Services Division, Los Angeles County Purchasing and Stores Department Ron Sato, Supervisor, Special Support Services, Los Angeles Superior Court Honorable Ernest Hiroshige, Los Angeles Superior Court . Honorable Ronald E. Cappai, Los Angeles Superior Court Ronald Fernstrom, Deputy Marshal, Criminal Courts Building, Disaster Coordinator . EXHIBIT A Citizen Complaint Form -303 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 974-3993 Date Phone ( ) Name _____ Address (City, State & Zip Code) COMPLAINT Complaint is regarding which Agency, City, District or County Department? Department/Agency/City/District Name_____ Address/Location _____ City, State & Zip Code Is complaint regarding a specific official or employee of an Agency, City, District, or County Department? Official or Employee Name Is complaint regarding a specific event? Time _____ Date _____ Location Please relate your complaint, including additional names, times, locations, witnesses, and other Details - factual, supporting information. 1.2 第2000の対象第6000の対象 Section Company (Section Company) Signature galovo-vorteriPlaternogenyk Attach additional sheets, if necessary. 900000 EXHIBIT A -303 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM INSTRUCTIONS Background The Los Angeles County Grand Jury is a group of 23 citizens selected by the Los Angeles Superior Court. The Grand Jury is charged with the responsibility of investigating and reporting on the operations, accounts, and records of county officers, departments, and functions. It is also given the same responsibility for cities, joint power agencies, redevelopment agencies, school districts and special districts. The general term for the responsibility is the Grand Jury's "watchdog function." One of the important tools the Grand Jury uses in performing the watchdog function is the citizen complaint process. The Grand Jury's citizen complaint process is most effective when a citizen has first tried to resolve the complaint with the appropriate agency. If a citizen receives an unsatisfactory response from the agency, or if the citizen is fearful of making a complaint directly to the agency, a complaint may be made to the Grand Jury. All citizen complaints must be written and are processed in confidence. The Grand Jury is obligated to maintain the secrecy of the complaint and will not divulge information regarding the originator of the complaint in its investigations. Every citizen has the right to submit a complaint to the Grand Jury. The complaint may be regarding any official or department of county, municipal, school district or special district agencies. Los Angeles County Superior Courts, California State and Federal officials and agencies are outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. Procedure To complete the Grand Jury Citizen Complaint Form, provide your name, address and daytime phone number. This information will remain confidential and will be used to correspond with you regarding the complaint. Provide specific complaint information in the other sections. Additional pages may be attached to the form. Mail or deliver the complaint to the Grand Jury. After a complaint is received it is forwarded to a committee within the Grand Jury for investigation. After the investigation, you will be notified, in confidence, of the complaint's final disposition. EXHIBIL R Date Disposition Disposition Date Letter Sent Action of the second September of the second . Sparantensor Recom-mended PanelDisposition Westparage of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of Strain controls Investigation Status Est'd Response Date State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the S Management of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of Grand Jury Panel Citizen Complaint Log DateStarted pdaddiliotoliagylaborous respek DateAck. LetterSent Parameters of the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the following the followin Date Complaint Assigned To Committee MagazaraniMagazarani StrongestedShmppegggg special contestsMagazina parasis Nature ofComplaint Statement File 9777 --- 1279976592725599 Complainant generalizadaprotestada . Severanday DateReceived State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the S $5000000000000000000000000000000000000 ComplaintNo. Medical response EXHIBIT C EXISTING FLOW OF CITZEN COMPLAINT PROCESS COMPLAINANT STAFF SECRETARY FORETHAN COMMITTEE GRAND JURY PANEL COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COMPLAINT LOGGED,MUMBER ASSIGNEDCOPIES ARE MADE . LEGAL ADVISOR COPY POREZYAN COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COPY COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COMPLAINT POREHAN AND LEGAL ADVISOR HEET ANDBISCUSS COMPLAINT FUREININ ATTACHES DISPOSITION FORM AND ASSIGNS COMPLAINT TO A CONTUTTEE ACCEPT! COMPLAINT MASTER YES FILE DISPOSIT. FORM MO COMPLAINT IS FOREIVAN PREPARESRESPONSE TOCOMPLAINMENT LOGGED INTO DISCUSSED COMPLAINT SENT TO MASTER FILE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT. MO DETAIL? RESPONSE RESPONSE RESPONSE TYPED AND MAILED TO COMPLAINANT YES CONSTITTEE PREPARES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER, MOTING LACK OF DETAIL ACKNOWL. LETTER FORETHIN ACKNOUL. STONS LETTER DRAFT CONSTITUEE PREPARES AKHOLILEDGETERIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER LETTER TYPED AND HAILED TO COMPLAINANT DRAFT RETURNED TO CORRUTTEE DRAFT TO STAFF,SECRETARY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATES, DISPOSES OF COMPLAINT AND DRAFTSDISPOSITION FOREMAN SIGHSBRAFT ANDBETURNS DRAFT DISPOSITION LETTER LETTER TYPED AND HAILED TO COMPLAINANT TO COMMITTEE DISPOSITION DISPOSITION LETTER LETTER CONSTITTEE GIVES AND COMPLETESDISPOSITIONFORM THE DISPOSITION DISPOSITION FORM AND ANNOUNCES DISPOSITION TO THE FORM PANEL PANEL NEARS DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINT FROM THE FORMAN ASSEMBLECOMPLAINT FILEFOR MASTERFILE DISPOSITION FORCE FILE COMPLAINT FILE INSTER FILE EXHIBIT D PROPOSED FLOW OF CITZEB COMPLAINT PROCESS CONSTITTEE COMPLAINANT STREET SECRETARY FOREISH GRAND JURY PANEL COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COMPLAINT LOGGED, MUMBER ASSIGNED COPIES ARE HADE LEGAL ADVISOR CODPY FORETHAN COMPLAINT COPY COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COMPLAINT COMPLAINT PURKINNI MID LEGALADVISOR HEET MIDDISCUSS COMPLAINT FOREIGN MITACHES DISPOSITIONFORM AND ASSIGNS COMPLAINT TO A COMMITTEE COMPLAINT ACCEPT? MASTER YES FILE DISPOSIT. COMPLAINT RECEIPT REPORTED IN PAREL SESSION FORM COMPLAINT INTO COMPLAINT MO SI THIRLIAMO LOGGED INTO FORETHIN PREPARES LOG RESPONSE TO COMPLAINMENT DISCUSSED COMPLAINT SENT TO HASTER FILE SUFFICIENT. COMPLAINT Ю DETAIL? RESPONSE RESPONSE YES RESPONSE TYPED AND HAILED TO COMPLAINANT CONSTITUTE PREPARES ACCIONALEDGEMENT LETTER, MOTING LACK OF DETAIL ACKNOUL. LETTER FORETIAN ACKNOWL. SIGNS DRAFT COMMITTEE LETTER PREPARES ADMOULEDGEMENT LETTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER TYPED AND HAILED TO COMPLAINANT PANEL HEARS RESULTS OF COMMITTEE THUESTIGATES INVESTIGATION AND CONSITTEE DISPOSITION TO RECORDENDATION AND DISPOSES COMPLAINT Œ GRAND JURY PROMEL CORPLITTEE FORETINN SIGNS DRAFT, COMPLAINT STATUS IS LOGGED PREPARES DISPOSITION LETTER FORMARDS DRAFT TO STAFF BY GRAND JUSY SECRETARY DISPOSITION LETTER BASED ON TYPED AND HAILED TO SECRETARY AND NOTIFIES PANEL DECISION COMPLAINANT GRAND JURY SECRETARY DISPOSITION DISPOSITION LETTER LETTER COMMITTEE GIVES DRAFT TO 1.2 FORETIAN, MAID COMPLETESDISPOSITIONFORM GRAND JURYSECRETARYLOGS DATELETTER SENT FOREIVAN REVIEWS THE DISPOSITION (FORM ANDFILES IT DISPOSITION FORth ASSEMBLECOMPLAINT FILEFOR MASTERFILE DISPOSITION FORM COMPLAINTFILE HASTERFILE • . SECTION SECTION . . . . • . . Security of the second CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE BankwartenaNamera wast Manager Strategy graphic Colonians STATE CONTRACTOR Apple by trouting Appropriate and a $100 Personal 25 CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Standing L to R: H. E. Resnick, Emma Fischbeck, Daniel Strauss Seated L to R: Danny Elias, James Hart, Chair . . CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE Purpose The Criminal Justice Committee reviews requests for investigative hearings and subpoenas as presented by the District Attorney and investigates and attempts to resolve criminal complaints. This year, the Criminal Justice Committee was assigned the mandated responsibility to inquire into the condition and management of the jails within the County (Penal Code Section 919). In addition, the adequacy of gun control laws was investigated. Areas of Concern Review, investigation and resolution of criminal complaints Gun control Inspection of Jails Areas of Investigation I. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS As of April 1, 1989, the committee reviewed 12 requests for investigative hearings or subpoenas. The committee also investigated 36 criminal complaints against public officials. The allegations ranged from rudeness to felonies. Several complaints did not come under the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. We were assisted by our legal advisor in reviewing the complaints. Some of the investigative work was done by the committee, but most of it was done by a special investigator assigned to the Grand Jury by the District Attorney's Office. The committee has diligently reviewed all assigned complaints. When outside agencies were not involved, the committee resolved the complaints in an expedient manner. In those complaint investigations when an outside agency was involved, the committee's completion date depended on the administrative and investigative procedures of that 1.3 agency. The committee felt that some complaints were not resolved in a timely manner. SELECTIVITIES SELECTION 25 Market Avenue II. GUN CONTROL PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to determine if California laws pertaining to gun ownership and possession are adequate. FOCUS/ISSUE The issue of "gun control" was assigned to our committee in August 1988, as an area of concern for the 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury. This gun control report is the culmination of a five-month study. It is hoped that some confusion about guns and gun control may be reduced and this project may stimulate further investigation and action by governmental agencies and concerned citizens. SCOPE The Criminal Justice Committee of the 1988-89 Los Angeles County Grand Jury investigated the legitimate ownership and possession of guns by private citizens in California by performing the following: Reviewed existing California and Federal laws Evaluated the positions of a broad spectrum of knowledgeable parties METHOD OF INVESTIGATION Our methodology used for this review consisted of interviews, documents and exit verifications. Interviews Sherman Block, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department William Booth, Commander, Los Angeles Police Department, Press Relations for the Chief of Police Lawrence Fetters, Commander, Los Angeles Police Department, Commission Operations Michael Ley, Sergeant, Los Angeles Police Department, Training Division, Law Instructor James Malley, Special Inspector, United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms David Marshall, State Liaison, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association Fred Romero, Field Representative, California and Nevada, National Rifle Association Robert Talcott, President, Los Angeles Police Department Commission Manager, Retail Gun Store at the Los Angeles Police Department Academy Manager, National Gun Sales Store in Reseda Claude L. Farris, Lieutenant, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 26 Documents Reviewed Federal Firearms Regulations, Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms State Laws and Published Ordinances-Firearms, Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms California Penal Code Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, digest, Harry Hogan, Specialist in American National Government, Government Division, United States Department of Justice The Use of Weapons in Committing Crimes, Michael Rand, et al, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics The Armed Criminal in America, James D. Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Washington Post News Articles Los Angeles Times News Articles Policy Analysis (The Case Against Gun Control), CATO Institute by David Kopel The American Hunter, Monthly publication of the National Rifle Association Radio Station KNX Editorials and replies by the National Rifle Association Guns Don't Die, People Do; Handgun Facts, Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, A report on the Subcommittee of the Constitution of the Committee on Judiciary of the United States Senate The Great American Gun War; Ten Myths About Gun Control; Gun Law Failures; Semiauto Firearms; The Myth of the "Saturday Night Special," National Rifle Association 1000 Exit Verifications Sherman Block, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department William Booth, Commander, Los Angeles Police Department, Press Relations for the Chief of Police Steve Mayes (National Rifle Association) for Fred Romero, Field Representative, California & Nevada, National Rifle Association FINDINGS The gun control battleground in the State Legislature is concerned with definitions. It is extremely difficult to define types of firearms and impractical to define them by manufacturer or model number. (Model numbers may be changed at the discretion of the manufacturer.) The principle issue of gun control is the conflict between the rights of the gun owner and the right of the public's safety. We found that law enforcement agencies throughout the county are concerned 0 about being out-gunned by the criminal element. Semiautomatic rifles or shotguns are fast becoming the weapon of choice by . criminals. Most semiautomatic weapons are easily convertible to fully automatic, which are • illegal without special license. Magazines are increasing in size and are now capable of holding in excess of 60 rounds. A citizen has no legitimate need for firepower of excessive magazine capacity. The law is inconsistent in having a fifteen-day waiting period/background check 0 for the purchase of handguns, and not having a waiting period for all other firearms. A waiting period for all guns will provide a desirable cooling off period. Repeat misdemeanor offenders, under the present law, may not be charged with 0 a felony for carrying a concealed weapon. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors promote and support state legislation that will prevent the future sale, purchase or possession of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors promote and support state legislation that will require the registration of all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns by their current owners. 3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors promote and support state legislation that will restrict the cartridge capacity of all guns to a maximum of sixteen rounds of ammunition. 4. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors promote and support state legislation that will extend the present fifteen-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to all guns. 5. The Grand Jury recommends that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors promote and support state legislation that will raise the classification from a misdemeanor to a misdemeanor/felony (wobbler) for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. III. JAILS PURPOSE The purpose of the committee was to inquire into the condition and management of adult detention facilities in Los Angeles County. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION The report of the 1986-87 Los Angeles County Grand Jury Jails Committee and citizen complaints were the bases for selection of jails visited. Eleven (11) adult detention facilities in Los Angeles County were visited by this committee. In addition, the entire Grand Jury was given an announced tour of the Central Jail. All committee inspections were unannounced. Holding facilities and jails as well as the Los Angeles County/ University of Southern California Medical Center were visited. All committee members participated in all jail visits whenever possible. The committee designed an inspection form with suggestions from previous grand juries, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the American Civil Liberties Union. The focus was on jail management and control, as well as on conditions such as security, food, health and sanitation. FINDINGS Operations were found to be efficient and physical conditions at the majority of the premises ranged from acceptable to very good. Most were very crowded. The food was good everywhere. At one time or another we all ordered the "mainline" meal, which is the meal served to the inmates. We were walked through inmate dining areas at mealtime on several occasions and saw large portions of wholesome food being served. In every instance, the kitchens were immaculate and staffed with professional nutritionists and experts in every aspect of food preparation. In some of the local city jails, restaurant food was ordered and delivered hot to the prisoners. Court lockup facilities normally served a cold lunch, usually a sandwich and a piece of fruit. The committee was continually impressed with the logistic ability of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to accomplish the gargantuan job of moving thousands of inmates each day to and from the courts. Facilities Visited (rating: acceptable to very good) 1,3 Unit #1, Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center Jail Ward Long Beach City Jail Hall of Justice Criminal Courts Building Lockup West Los Angeles Municipal Court Lockup 29 5.8 San Fernando Municipal Jail 0 Beverly Hills Municipal Jail 0 North Valley Division Superior Court Holding Facility Peter J. Pitchess Honor Ranch 0 Facility Visited (rating: poor) Long Beach Court Lockup Building The Long Beach Court Lockup building was built in 1960 but is at present far from being an adequate holding facility. Our inspections revealed the following conditions: Overcrowding • Poor sanitation Frequently broken telephones No air circulation Broken and exposed electrical wiring Peeling paint A tar floor that is difficult or impossible to clean Need for a new juvenile holding cell No security elevator In our visits to the Long Beach Court Lockup building, we found in each instance that there was severe overcrowding on inmate floor 4-D. In each instance we also found only a portion of inmate floor 2-D being used. We were told and we understand that this disparity in inmate density is due to the need to keep juveniles and adults separated. We determined that, if another place could be found in the building for juvenile holding, inmate floor 2-D could be used for adult inmates. This would provide 140 more spaces for adult inmates. We found a possible location for juvenile holding on the sixth floor immediately adjacent to a courtroom: a configuration that could be patterned after the juvenile holding rooms on the fifth floor. We understand that the Chief Administrative Office is currently looking elsewhere on the fifth and sixth floors for space for juvenile holding rooms. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the appropriate authority to immediately correct the facility deficiencies at the Long Beach Court Lockup building. 2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the Chief Administrative Office to find alternate juvenile holding rooms at the Long Beach Court Lockup building in order to free 140 additional spaces for adult inmates. APPENDIX Jails PERSONS INTERVIEWED Lt. Ed Kreins, Beverly Hills Police Department Sgt. Thomas Robinson, North Valley Division, Superior Court Holding, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Capt. Robert A. Fernandez, Peter J. Pitchess Honor Ranch, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Lt. Wilma Findon, Peter J. Pitchess Honor Ranch, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Lt. Dan Peavy, City of San Fernando Police Department Deputy Greg Emboy, West Los Angeles Municipal Court Holding, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Sgt. Les Arnold, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Senior Deputy Bob Belair, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Long Beach Municipal Court Holding Sgt. Gregory F. Saballone, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Criminal Courts Building Holding Lt. G. Hetzel, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Capt. Alan L. Chancellor, Hall of Justice, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Sgt. Stephen Eliakedas, Long Beach City Police Department W.D. Meeks, Long Beach City Police Department, Long Beach City Jail Sgt. Steve Manthorne, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Unit #1 Commander, Los Angeles County/ University of Southern California Medical Center Jail Ward Assertantian Market Phyllis Johnson, Juvenile Courts Delinquency Coordinator, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Robert Fletcher, Long Beach Juvenile Court Mike Henry, Division Chief, Public Safety Division, Chief Administrative Office Dennis Petty, Head Deputy, Long Beach Branch Office, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Bryan Woolridge, Deputy-in-Charge, Long Beach Juvenile Office, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office SECONDS Steve Hough, Deputy Public Defender, Long Beach Branch Office, Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office 4.8 PersonaniaMenopeania 31 . . × . . . * • • . .