Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006 Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies Resolving a Dichotomy!

Summary Why wait until there is a highly publicized and Acronyms criticized officer-involved event that results in the hasty, emotional creation of a citizen oversight BOS Board of Supervisors commission? Although Orange County history may CALEA Commission on not demonstrate an overwhelming need, long term Accreditation for Law interests of residents may best be served by Enforcement Agencies independent monitoring prior to such an event. LEA Law Enforcement Agency Other than the Orange County grand jury, there is no (Agencies) formal citizen oversight of county and city law OCSD Orange County Sheriff’s enforcement agencies (LEAs). Although there is no Department statutory authority that requires a grand jury to accept resident’s complaints, the practice of Orange County POST California Peace Officers’ grand juries has been to do so. The California Standards and Training Department of Justice also allows grand juries to act in such a capacity as it relates to complaints regarding LEAs. The complaint form is available to residents online at www.ocgrandjury.org; however, not all complaints received are acted upon by grand juries. Advocates believe that citizen oversight improves visibility of and accountability by LEAs. Orange County cities and LEAs consider current oversight to be adequate and citizen oversight groups redundant, (1) because LEAs are effectively enforcing the law and providing public safety while adhering to policies and procedures and (2) because of the many existing criminal justice system oversight agencies, community outreach programs, evolving policies and procedures, internal complaint procedures, and the election process. In addressing this dichotomy between advocacy groups and LEAs, the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury found that: 1.1 Current practices for improving county and city LEAs’ policies and procedures may not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best practices. 1.2 Past independent reviews of LEAs’ practices have been unique, limited reviews rather than periodic reviews of policies, procedures and compliance. .3 Using public/private sector management techniques such as best practices, self- assessment, and independent audits would improve LEA monitoring (as opposed to citizen oversight boards which are subject to political pressure). 1.4 The grand jury faces significant limitations when considering and responding to citizen complaints about LEAs, including time constraints, lack of law enforcement and/or legal experience, and response contents.

Introduction and Purpose of the Study Residents have the right to reasonable treatment at the hands of law enforcement, acknowledging that there are occasions where extreme measures by officers are warranted. Recent exposure of the Grand Jury to individual concerns of alleged abuse at the hands of Orange County LEAs demonstrated an absence of a formal citizen review of such events. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a need for citizen oversight to improve community visibility of LEAs, and to explore alternative oversight mechanisms.

Method of Study To conduct this study, the Grand Jury: • Interviewed members of LEAs, other Orange County residents, and oversight agencies outside of Orange County • Reviewed current studies and documents regarding oversight mechanisms and laws • Surveyed LEAs regarding policies and procedures, complaint processes, and existing oversight mechanisms • Participated in a “call-out”, a “ride-along”, and tours, including Coroner Reviews, an autopsy, forensics, pathology, jails and other LEA operations 4. Background In general, LEAs establish a system of planned actions (control system) that are built into processes/procedures to provide reasonable assurance of achieving effectiveness and efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Monitoring is the external oversight of the control system by management or other parties outside a process. Ongoing monitoring may involve analysis/reviews by other employees, e.g., many LEAs include personnel assigned to risk management and internal affairs units. Monitoring may also be independent evaluations conducted by citizen oversight organizations external to a LEA, e.g., police commissions and grand juries. Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies The International Association of Chiefs of Police publication “Police Accountability and Citizen Review-A Leadership Opportunity for Police Chiefs” outlines LEA leader actions to understand and help implement oversight mechanisms. According to this report: “Public concerns about racial profiling, excessive use of force, deliberate violations of sanctioned evidence handling procedures and corruption create mistrust. When events such as these take center stage, communities begin to question the integrity of their police agencies.” Although recognizing that LEA leaders must take a proactive approach, most LEAs in Orange County do not have community-recognized, independent citizen oversight mechanisms. 4.1 Internal Monitoring Several oversight process options exist internally within California LEAs to assure that policies and procedures are appropriate, that training is adequate, and that officers meet standards: Investigations: Detectives conduct an investigation of an officer-involved event or complaint to determine criminality. All LEAs in Orange County have adopted the Operational and Procedural Protocol “Establish Protocol for Officer Involved Shootings”, established in 1990 by the Orange County Chiefs’ of Police and Sheriff’s Association. Based on this protocol, an LEA requests that the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation or another LEA conduct the investigation. Internal Affairs: An internal affairs unit conducts separate administrative investigations into officer-involved events that allege misconduct on the part of an officer. LEA leaders review these investigations and take applicable actions. Professional Standards: A professional standards unit conducts independent investigations to determine if there are issues with policies, procedures, and training.

Observations and Discussion To understand LEA management structure, policies and procedures, oversight methods, and extent of resident complaints, surveys were conducted by the Grand Jury using letters addressed to Orange County city managers and during interviews with other city leaders and participating LEAs. The following survey results indicate the total number of complaints made to LEAs for the years 2003-2005 and the percentage of the complaints that were sustained. Number of Number Percent Orange County Complaint Source Complaints Sustained Sustained Resident complaints received by LEAs 1,317 162 12.3% Internal complaints received by LEAs 1,378 736 53.4% These numbers can be compared with resident complaints of other LEAs: • Department of Justice 2000-2003 statistics indicate that 10.8% of 88,757 resident’s complaints statewide were sustained • City of Los Angeles 2004-2005 statistics indicate that approximately 5% of 9,442 resident complaints were sustained 5.1 Current Monitoring Is Considered Adequate By Authorities Survey results, public documents, and Grand Jury observations indicate that cities and LEAs in Orange County consider current oversight to be adequate for the following reasons: • Policies and procedures evolve within LEA review processes and by association with organizations such as Orange County Chiefs’ of Police and Sheriff’s Association, the CALEA, and POST. In addition, LEAs have outreach programs to involve their respective communities, including advisory boards. • Other oversight mechanisms exist such as the Orange County District Attorney, State Attorney General, Federal Department of Justice, the grand jury complaint system, Coroner’s reviews, and independent consultant reviews. • All LEAs have internal as well as resident’s complaint procedures which provide for investigation and subsequent notification of the results to the complainant. • Cooperation between LEAs, based upon protocols, was evident when a “call out” for an officer-involved shooting was witnessed by the Grand Jury. Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies Representatives of the involved city agency, the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation, and the OCSD worked together at the scene of the investigation. • Cities with municipal police departments have a police chief appointed by the city manager/administrator who, in turn, is appointed by the city council. In general, oversight rests within this organization with the city council responsible to the residents of that city. • The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner is elected by the citizens of the county and oversight is maintained within the OCSD; moreover, oversight is ultimately these same citizens through the election process. • In many cases, complainants have unreal expectations that their complaint should be sustained and definitive action taken and communicated. 5.2 Why Monitoring May Not Be Adequate Orange County and city LEAs have demonstrated themselves to be models of propriety by good governance and/or good fortune; few highly publicized and criticized police events have occurred. Although history may not demonstrate an overwhelming need, the following issues demonstrate that the best interests of Orange County residents could be served with increased public oversight: • The election of the Sheriff-Coroner and the process of appointing police chiefs by elected city councils do not ensure that there is a proactive monitoring process at work. Examples of possible weaknesses include: public and city council interest/intervention limited; a lack of periodic reviews of LEA policies and procedures; public and council membership without law enforcement experience; the “chain of command” within LEAs: and, limited lines of communication between LEAs and the public. • Orange County demographics are beginning to take on the look of surrounding counties where crime rates are significantly higher. Examples of crime-related trends within Orange County include: (cid:131) The number of bookings in county-operated jails increased 10.4% between 2001 and 2005 to 66,330 while average daily inmate population increased 18.8%. At least one event of violence occurs daily during the booking process and approximately 10% of these events result in an injury. (cid:131) District Attorney investigations of LEA officer-involved shootings, custodial deaths, and other officer-involved events increased from 18 in 2000 to 35 in 2005 after falling from a high of 59 in 1994. • Although LEAs may continually work to improve policies and procedures, this does not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best .3 Limitations of the Grand Jury Complaint System The Criminal Justice committee of each grand jury is typically given the task of considering resident complaints against LEAs. The Grand Jury reviewed several resident complaints and found that there were significant limitations: • A new grand jury is impaneled annually and requires several months for the members to develop the understanding and skills necessary to perform this specific responsibility • The time to review complaints is negatively impacted as a result of: (cid:131) the time required to act as “public watchdogs” by becoming familiar with county governance, determining issues that should be investigated, and completing reports (cid:131) the 20%-30% of time required for criminal hearings • Typically, there is limited law enforcement or legal experience on which to evaluate law enforcement practices and processes • There may be a lack of continuity between successive grand juries • Reporting to the complainant is via a non-specific letter and the grand jury cannot release decisions made to sustain or not sustain a complaint 5.4 Attributes of a Successful Citizen Oversight Mechanism The Grand Jury determined that the following are key attributes of a successful oversight mechanism: • Independence from political institutions and influence and from LEAs to ensure that a conflict of interest does not occur • Use of best practice standards to measure: performance of officers, supervisors and management; effective policies and procedures; and, compliance to policy and procedures • Provision for necessary resources for investigation and deliberation Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies • Representation of the county’s demographics of age, diversity, gender, culture and socio-economic status • Flexibility to meet the needs of a fast growing, dynamic community of residents and law enforcement 5.5 General Observations Effectiveness of citizen oversight investigative mechanisms (citizen oversight boards) is debatable and Grand Jury review of several oversight mechanisms outside of Orange County proved disappointing. In most cases the individuals selected for investigative oversight were appointed by a political entity or work within a political entity, thus limiting their ability to act independently. An investigative oversight mechanism, in the absence of pressure or a defined necessity, appears too cumbersome and costly for adoption in Orange County at this time. One study indicated that investigative oversight may reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement by inhibiting peace officers doing their job. Because internal investigations by LEAs support their actions in about 88% of resident complaints, an appearance of bias is created. Although the review process by grand juries should continue, for a variety of reasons, the results are very limited. Utilization of an outside consultant or special counsel to evaluate an LEA in its entirety would provide an in-depth review of operations, resulting in recommendations for improvement of policies and procedures. Such a review would also establish how well the LEA is managed and is evolving into a best practices organization. As an evaluative and performance-based oversight mechanism, this would meet the desirable goal of oversight to establish accountability and visibility of an LEA.

Findings In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 6.1 Best practices goal: Current practices for improving county and city law enforcement agencies’ (LEAs’) policies and procedures may not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best practices. 6.2 Independent reviews of LEAs: The use of independent reviews of LEAs’ practices is limited to unique reviews rather than to periodic reviews of policies, procedures, and compliance. .3 Orange County is changing: Orange County and city LEAs will face new challenges as the number of crimes increase, reflecting those of surrounding counties. 6.4 LEA self-assessment: Using public/private sector management techniques such as best practices, self-assessment, and independent audits would improve LEA monitoring. 6.5 Addressing resident complaints: LEA and citizen oversight committees, including the grand jury face significant limitations when considering and responding to resident complaints about LEAs, including time constraints, inability to act independently, and lack of law enforcement and/or legal experience for citizen and grand jury committees. Responses to Findings 6.1 through 6.4 are requested from the 21 Orange County municipal police departments and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Findings 6.2 and 6.3 are required from the 34 Orange County city mayors. Responses to Finding 6.5 are required from the Orange County District Attorney and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.

Recommendations In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005- 2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: 7.1 Best practices guidelines: The Orange County municipal police departments should consider adopting or developing best practices guidelines appropriate for inclusion in LEAs’ goals/objectives. An example would be the publication of a best practice document as a self-assessment guide to handling residents’ complaints. (See Findings 6.1 and 6.4.) 7.2 Near-term, independent review of LEA policies, procedures, and compliance: The Orange County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange County City Mayors, should consider contracting for a near-term independent review of LEAs’ current policies, procedures, and compliance to provide current status as compared to best practices. (See Findings 6.2 and 6.3.) Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies 7.3 Periodic, independent reviews of LEA compliance to policies and procedures: The Orange County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange County City Mayors, should consider contracting for periodic, independent reviews of LEAs’ policies and procedures, using best practices guidelines as criteria. (See Findings 6.2 and 6.3.) 7.4 Strengthen grand jury: The Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney should recommend specific training to each LEA and citizen oversight committee, including grand juries, directed toward review of resident complaints about LEAs. (See Finding 6.5.) Responses to Recommendations 7.1 through 7.3 are requested from the 21 Orange County municipal police departments and required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. Responses to Recommendations 7.2 and 7.3 are required from the 34 Orange County city mayors. Responses to Recommendation 7.4 are required from the Orange County District Attorney and the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner.