Implementation of the E-Subpoena program

Recommendations 25

• R1

  Page 30
  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

  Page 30
  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, -...,,:::~- <llnunttr nf 1Jln5 i\ng:eI:e5 ( d§henff' Eepatitttettf lIea()-IJUa:rnrs 5 47DD 3Ra:molta: 16luukua:r() ­ jJl[.nmerey JTa:rk, OIa:lifornia: 91754-2169 LEROY D. BACA. SHERIFF September 30, 2011 The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmond Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11~506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Dear Judge Edmond: / i 2010-2011 GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC LEGAL SERVICE AND LEGAL DOCUMENT DELIVERY This is in response to your memorandum dated July 18,2011, directing a written response to Recommendations 3 and 4 of the 2010-2011 Grand Jury report entitled "E-Subpoena One Way to End the Paper Chase." These recommendations pertain to the utilization of electronic means to accomplish legal service transactions and delivery of legal documents between justice agencies and the courts. RECOMMENDATION NO.3 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Los Angeles Police Department evaluate electronically transmitting documents such as police reports and probable cause determinations among law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the Court. RESPONSE The Information Systems Advisory Body (ISAB) ofthe Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, which represents a number of County agencies including the Sheriff, Judges, District Attorney and Public Defender, is in the process of implementing this recommendation. ISAB has identified several electronic Probable Cause Determination (ePCD) service and delivery system implementation options including development of a system utilizing a private vendor; development of a system utilizing in-house LASD information technology; or, adoption of an existing system. ISAB solicited and received an estimate from an existing County IT vendor (Global 360) for the cost of developing a custom ePCD solution, and is also closely evaluating an existing ePCD system developed by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 0/ :7l 7radifion dervice ( Judge Edmond - 2- September 30,2011 ISAB estimates that a best option will be selected and an ePCD solution will be implemented within one to two years. Regarding the electronic delivery ofpolice reports, LASD currently has a small scale, ad-hoc implementation with expansion efforts underway. LASD crime/incident reports are usually completed manually, on paper forms and then partially converted into digital form at the station level. Some report information is inputted into the Los Angeles Regional Crime Information System (LARCIS) during processing. The paper form is also converted to a digital image capable ofbeing electronically transmitted, but this process can take as long as six months. Technical obstacles to full implementation ofdigital police report delivery are in the process of being addressed. The Sheriffs Integrated Records Retrieval and Assembly System (SIRRAS) is being replaced by the Sheriffs Electronic Criminal Documents Archive (SECDA) which uses a universal imaging format. LASD is also replacing equipment in its patrol vehicles to more capable mobile data computers. In conjunction with this replacement effort, is the development ofa Field Based Incident Reporting System (FIBRS). Upon completion ofthese two technology upgrade initiatives, LASD will have the infrastructure in place to create, archive and transmit police reports in electronic form. LASD also intends to replace its obsolete records management system (LARCIS) with a more modem system (iNets) that will give LASD the capability to implement a completely electronic, "paperless" records system. In conclusion, planning and implementation are underway, by ISAB and LASD, to electronically create, store and transmit Probable Cause Determination and police reports internally and externally to other criminal justice agencies. RECOMMENDATION NO.4 LASD to expand implementation offiling Pitchess motions electronically. A Pitchess motion defines those portions ofa deputy's personnel file which may be made available to defonse counsel. RESPONSE Electronic filing ofPitc hess motions has been implemented among LASD, Public Defender's Office and Office of the County Counsel. The system will soon be utilized by more justice agencies within the County. A plan to add additional functions and capabilities has also been established. The idea of electronic delivery ofPitc hess motions was conceived and brought to fruition by the LASD Risk Management Bureau's Discovery Unit in collaboration with the Public Defender's Office, Office ofthe County Counsel, Alternate Public Defender's Office, and the Civil Service Commission. Following a successful pilot program in 2009 at the Compton Courthouse, the Sheriff and Public Defender applied for and were awarded a $75,000 grant from the County's Quality and Productivity Commission. This grant provided funding for the hardware and Judge Edmond -3 - September 30, 2011 software resources needed to put the system, named ePitchess, into production at the fourteen busiest courthouses throughout the County. Since the initial deployment, this innovative system has achieved significant operating efficiencies among all participating entities in the form oftime and resource savings and much better accountability and tracking. The ePitchess system was expanded to include the Alternate Public Defender and the county Civil Service Commission. Justice agencies outside county government are also adopting ePitchess; the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles City Attorney currently have a pre-production pilot program in progress. A four-phase program plan has been established to guide the ePitchess system to a future "build-out" state: Phase I implements Pitchess motion document creation, filing and receipt acknowledgement capabilities; Phase II adds opposition document creation and filing; Phase III adds compliance report creation and filing; Phase IV adds scheduling information and services. Current production systems encompass Phases I and II. Future expansion, which will occur as organization sponsors emerge and resources become available, will successively add Phases III and IV capabilities. In conclusion, the electronic filing ofPitc hess Motions has been implemented among the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, Public Defender's Office and Office of the County Counsel. The inclusion ofthe Alternate Public Defender, Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles City Attorney's office is imminent. A program plan has been established to enhance the impressive efficiencies ofePitchess by adding further capabilities and functions in the future. Sincerely, ~ LE OYD.BACA S$RlFF LDB:DB:JG:ES:llr c: DSB DSB File (2011GJRecommendation092211) THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES 425 S. Palos Verdes Street Post OHlce Box 151 San Pedro. CA 90733-0151 TEL/TDD 310 SEA-PORT www.portollosangeles.org Antonio R. Villaraigosa Mayor, City ofLos Angeles Board of Harbor Cindy Mlsclkowskl David Adan Robin M. Kramer Douglas P. Krause Sung Won Sohn. Ph.D. Commissioners President Vice President Geraldine Knatz. Ph.D. Executive Director September 12, 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 Dear Judge: We have received the audit report from the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (LACCGJ) related to the Harbor Department and appreciate the efforts undertaken in your review of the Port of Los Angeles. We would like to respond to the recommendations therein.
• R2a

  Page 24
  Establish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." This willfacilitate: 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. LAPD's Response: The Department agrees with the finding that a "High Tech Forensics Bureau" should be established to facilitate theaforementioned advantages. The Department already has a Scientific Investigation Division (SID) whose areas of:responsibility include the collection and analysis offorensic evidence, staffed by highly trained civilian employees. Therefore, the recommendation to establish a bureau will be considered as implemented.
• R2b

  Page 24
  Update regular law eriforcement recruit and detective training to include orientation, procedures, protocols and other training with respect to digital evidence. LAPD's Response: The Department agrees with the finding and has implemented the recommendation. In November 2010, the Recruit Lesson Plan was updated to include orientation, procedures, protocols and other training with respect to digital evidence .. In {, ) December 2010, Special Order No. 34 was published, delineating the procedures for the retrieval and booking of audio and video evidence. This order was issued to all LAPD employees via the Learning Management System.
• R2d

  Page 24
  Take steps to acquire the POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic examiners and eyber investigators to allow for reimbursement ofthe costs. LAPD's Response: The Department does not agree with the finding and will not implement the recommendation. Scientific Investigation Division staff requires significant technical training and continuing education to develop and maintain their expeltise. To fulfill this need, the Narcotics Analysis Laboratory Trust Fund (NALTF) was created in the late 1990's 1:J fund narcotics related analysis and equipment, in addition to training opportunities for all members of SID. Approximately $150,000 is available through NALTF for training each fiscal year. Furthermore, SID staff also attends training and continuing education events funded through State and federal grants. The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon 1.14 ) Technical training is also available through the California Criminalistic Institute, State of California Department of Justice, and Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigations at no cost to POST supported or State of California based law enforcement agencies. Since there are sufficient funding available for SID personnel and non-SID personnel to attend high technology courses, the recommendation will not be implemented. Jails Committee
• R2e

  Page 24
  Include training in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training. LAPD's Response: The Department partially agrees with the finding and has implemented part ofthe recommendation. From January 2011 through June 2011, SID provided roll call training to employees assigned to Office ofOperations and Detective Bureau on the digital multimedia evidence retrieval. The analysis ofdigital evidence remains the responsibility of SID and therefore the analysis of digital training was not provided.
• R3

  Page 23
  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
• R3a

  Page 25
  West Los Angeles Police Department - To establish continuous training for the staff: i. To ensure they are informed ofthe results ofthe previous Correctional Standards Report ii, To ensure that staffadhere to the recommendations made in the previous Correctional Standards Report
• R3b

  Page 25
  Establish a central location for safety gear. LAPD's Response: The Department does not agree with the finding and Recommendations 3a and 3b. The Civil Grand Jury visited West Los Angles Area Community Police Station (WLA (,' CPS) to inspect their jail for housing conditions, medical needs, food, staff training, safety and , '~ .I fire procedures, administrative processes and guidelines, as well as inmate living needs. West Los Angeles Area Community Police Station did not have a jail and had informed the Civil Grand Jury accordingly. However, the Civil Grand Jury continued their inspection and found WLA CPS staff not well versed in the existing jail policies and procedures. Since WLA CPS did not have ajail, the employees were neither expected to know nor responsible for knowing jail policies and procedures such as housing conditions, medical needs, food, staff training, safety and fire procedures, administrative processes and guidelines, as well as inmate living needs. Therefore, LAPD will not implement Recommendations 3a and 3b. Note: The report referred to WLA CPS as West Los Angeles Police Department. West Los Angeles Area Community Police Station personnel confirmed that an inspection was conducted by the Civil Grand Jury. There is no West Los Angeles Police Department. Should you have any questions or require further information, please have a member ofyour staff contact Police Administrator Gerald L. Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, at (213) 486-8730. r YY yrul r!. ~ Chief POLICE DEPARTMENT City of Manhattan Beach 420 15th Street MANHATIAN BEACH, CALlFORNIA 90266 (310) 802-5103 FAX (310) 802-5101 EVE R.lRVINE CHIEF OfPOU<;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 Report. 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 I City Prosecutor utilize the e-Subpoena system in locations wherein the police depaltment 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 instlUcted 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. Thank you, ~ EVE R. IRVINE CHIEF OF POLICE "Policing through Partllerships" City of Manhattan Beach Web Site: www.citvmb.info City of HUNTINGTON PARK California POLICE DEPARTMENT 6542 MILES AVENUE, HUNTINGTON PARK, CALIFORNIA 90255-4386 TEL. (323) 826-6629 • FAX (323) 826-6680 JORGE CISNEROS CHIEF OF POLICE August 3,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortage Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Re: Response to Recommendations by the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury To Whom it May Concern: ( On June 30, 2010, the Huntington Park Police Department received a portion ofthe 2010­ ~. 2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report that affects this agency. The Huntington Park Police Department is responding to recommendation number one; 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 Huntington Park Police Department agrees with the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury recommendations in regards to recommendation number one, in fact we were in the process of evaluating the e-subpoena system prior to the recommendations and are supportive ofthis efficiency measure. The Huntington Park Police Department is currently working with a third party vendor to implement the e-subpoena system. We anticipate this system to be fully functional within the next 90 days and will notify you once the program has been fully implemented. If we can be of any further assistance please contact Lieutenant Anthony Porter at (323)826-6641 Z i JClrge Cisneros Chief of Police JC/AP laccgjresp CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA Jaime de la Vega DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GENERAL MANAGER 100 S, Main St., 10th Floor LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 972·8480 FAX (866) 530·3154 ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR September 28, 2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Court 210 West Temple Street Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, California 90012-3210 Subject: Response to "Final Report, 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury, County of Los Angeles", June 30,2011 re: Preferential Parking Your Honor: { >, The Los Angeles Department of Transportation's response to the Civil Grand Jury's (CGJ) findings and recommendations are attached. Feel free to contact me at (213) 972-8448 or [email protected] or Assistant General Manager Amir Sedadi at (213) 972-8422 or [email protected] if you have any questions or need additional information. " " e la Vega I Manager Enclosure cc: Amir Sedadi, Assistant General Manager Tamara Martin, Parking Permits Division Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Response to "Final Report, 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury, County of Los Angeles", June 30,2011 re: Preferential Parking For purposes of the following responses, LADOT assumed that the term "PPD" refers to temporary preferential parking district 130 and petition activity surrounding sign posting on the 1600 block of Hi-Point Street.
• R4

  Page 40
  Los Angeles City Council, the DWP Board of Commissioners and LACERS Board of Administrators need to amend the reciprocity agreement between LACERS and WPERP with regard to the transfer of employer pension contributions in order to prevent such inequity in the future. LACERS Response: As stated in the answer to Recommendation #3, as system administrator, the LACERS Board has no authority to negotiate retirement benefits, including but not limited to reciprocity benefits with WPERP. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact Tom Moutes, LACERS General Manager at 213-473-7280. Sincerely, ~~ent Board of Administration RC:TM:bc 2011-0902-072 C: Eric Garcetti, City Council President Gerry F. Miller, Chief Legislative Analyst Miguel A. Santana, City Administrative Officer Matthew Rudnick, Mayor's Office LACERS Board of Administration OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ANT 0 N loR. V ILL A R A I GO S A September 12, 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 Dear Judge: We have received the audit report from the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (LACCGJ) related to the Harbor Department and appreciate the efforts undertaken in your review of the Port of Los Angeles. Our office concurs with Board of Harbor Commission President Cindy Miscikowski's responses to the recommendations in the report. We would like to respond additionally to recommendation 3.
• R5

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R6

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R7

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R8

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R9

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding. 1• (v1. Th~"" ~''~"n'''_p on d e n~ ... . a~g r"~"Q,,",, ""';i"t'Lh. tho'"' fi 1 " . ' . d ! , ne~; '
• R11

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R12

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R13

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R14

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R15

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R16

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R17

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R18

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R19

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding.
• R20

  Page 46
  The respondent agrees with the finding. @xcetlence • G!Jnnovation • G!Jnter;z:itlj Responses to the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury's Recommendations: