Finance Department*

– The Civil Grand Jury finds that the Oakdale Police Department PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT mishandled the case investigated in this complaint by focusing on 455 S. Fifth Ave. the adult in an apparent attempt to reduce or counteract his crime Oakdale, CA 95361 (209) 845-3600 while ignoring the plight of the juvenile. (209) 848-4344 There is no evidence to support a finding that the Oakdale Police Department mishandled the case against either offender. The Oakdale Police POLICE Department's investigation was submitted to the Stanislaus County District DEPARTMENT 245 N. Second Ave. Attorneys' Office and the Stanislaus County Probation Department, as is Oakdale, CA 95361 common practice in law enforcement. The District Attorney's Office noted a (209) 847-2231 (209) 847-3790 Fax lack of evidence against the 18-year-old offender and did not file criminal charges. The District Attorney's Office (Juvenile Division) dismissed charges against the juvenile offender and closed the case against him for reasons CITY OF OAKDALE undisclosed. WEBSITE www.ci.oakdale.ca.us As stated by Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager, "there is no indication that anyone at OPD withheld information or in any way interfered E-MAIL with the investigation or referral of either of the two suspects' cases." information @ci.oakdale.ca.us The Honorable Jack M. Jacobson August 12, 2010 Page Two

- The Civil Grand Jury finds that the Chief of Police failed to enforce the law equally for the two suspects and for the best interests of the residents of the City of Oakdale. There is no evidence to support this finding. Chief West was not involved in the arrest of either offender. He first learned of the crime on Monday, May 4, 2009, three days after the arrest of the offenders, when he received an e-mail inquiry from Ceres Police Chief Art DeWerk. At the time, he was out of town attending a conference. DeWerk expressed concerns in his e-mail that Oakdale officers arrested and charged two boys with a felony for what he described as a harmless juvenile prank. At the time, Chief West telephoned Lieutenant Gladney to inquire about the case. Gladney informed West that two males, an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old, had been arrested attempting to detonate a dry ice bomb under a park bench in Valley View Park. At the time of the incident, it was raining and the park was unoccupied. The bomb had not detonated and there was no damage to park. West learned from Gladney that both males had been arrested for a felony. In addition, the District Attorney's Office noted that it did not believe they could meet their burden of proof if the case went to trial.

- The Civil Grand Jury finds that on May 13, 2009, the Chief of Police issued and implemented a highly unusual verbal "standing order," also known as a departmental verbal policy. This standing order mandates that officers receive departmental and administrative approval prior to arresting suspects up to nineteen years of age on explosive changes. The City disagrees with this finding. Chief West does not have a "departmental verbal policy" mandating that officers receive departmental and administrative approval prior to making any arrest. However, he has had a longstanding practice of requiring the lieutenants, sergeants, or watch commanders to notify him of major crimes and unusual occurrences that come to their attention. This bomb incident was an unusual case. West's practice of requiring notification allows him the opportunity to provide direction and guidance to his staff regarding the handling of critical incidents.

- The Civil Grand Jury finds that the Chief of Police demonstrated poor leadership in the handling of this case by being influenced by another police chief and by failing to follow through to make sure both suspects were treated equally under the law. The City disagrees with this finding because Chief DeWerk's e-mail did not influence Chief West to make the inquiry anymore than any other e-mail or phone call from a citizen would have influenced him. After Lieutenant Gladney provided him with the facts of the case, he agreed with DeWerk that the facts did not support a felony charge under the specified Penal Code section. At West's direction, Gladney placed calls to the District Attorney's Office and the Probation Department expressing concerns that the actions of the suspects did not appear to fit the elements of the crime. Again, the District Attorney's Office found that there was nothing that was improper about the referral of either case, and that they did not believe they could meet their burden of proof in the adult's case. The Honorable Jack M. Jacobson August 12, 2010 Page Three