Review of Police Department Arrest and Information Release Procedures: Three Cases

The Grand Jury found that all three departments are in compliance with state law governing the release of information to the media/public.

The Grand Jury found that within the sample of three police departments, the number of individuals permitted to divulge information to the press varies from department to department. In one department, interactions with the press are tightly controlled by two full-time, trained Public Information Officers. In another department, any officer is permitted to give a statement to the press about a case other than a homicide. Trained officers know what the public may and may not legally know. Moreover, they are able to exercise good judgment about what the public should be told when there might be sound reasons for withholding information. Trained officers learn how to get their facts straight and stick to their story, thus ensuring that one version—and only one version—goes out the door. Having only professionally trained public information officers as gatekeepers for news better serves the rights of both the victims and the accused, safeguards the prosecutor’s case, protects the public, and furthers the cause of justice.

The Grand Jury found that there was a need for a police officer trained in interviewing children in the Palo Alto child sexual abuse case. A reading of the child interview’s transcript and comments made by the Assistant District Attorney who deals with sexual crimes indicated that the Palo Alto police interviewer was 6 not sufficiently skilled in the specialized techniques required to elicit factual information from children.

The Grand Jury learned that the three sexual assault cases involved evidence in addition to DNA evidence. California Penal Code Section 836 states that an officer can make an arrest when there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, whether or not one has in fact been committed. Analysis of DNA evidence takes time. Police are obligated to arrest the suspect, based on sufficient probable cause evidence, even though the DNA evidence has not yet been analyzed.

The Grand Jury learned that when DNA analysis clears the suspect of being the perpetrator of the crime, and no other evidence supports the arrest, charges are promptly dropped and the suspect is released from detention.

The Grand Jury learned that the Crime Lab must meet exacting standards required by DNA analysis. DNA analysis requires time. According to the Crime Lab, it is not possible to provide accurate results within 24, 48, or sometimes not even 72 hours. 7

The Grand Jury learned that the District Attorney’s Office is responsive to public opinion and is willing to probe into the details of its own activities, as well as that of the police departments it oversees. It makes the results of its inquiries widely known to the citizenry it serves. The District Attorney’s Office is willing and able to both defend appropriate policies/procedures, as well as acknowledge past errors in procedures and judgment. Most importantly, the District Attorney’s Office institutes new policies and procedures to minimize future mistakes.