High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age

Recommendations 32

• R1

  Page 97
  lInpl~mente-Subpoena as n cost saving and operational efficiency measure for local law enf6rcement agencies receiving a.t least one hundred fifty (:1.50) DA subpoenas quarterly. . .' . . - . , ' . . . . . ResponseJ: The recommendation has not yetheenirrtplemertted, hut the Torrance Police Department has resear:ched implementation of an E':Subp()ena systeJ;lland plans to begin beta testing ofthistechnology illFall2011. Staffhas examined avair~bleE-Subpoena software packages successfully deployed by law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County and plans to deploy a sihlilat system for asixmonthtrial period. .Through E-Subpoenairnplementation, the departmenthopestohetterits cost and process efficienc'ie's through such features as:. email .notification oi'subpoenareceipt and seivice,stre~lilledaudittrails, email notification ofofficer appearance instni~tions, and centralized perforrn.ance repoftingand service tracking. Additionally, the City ofTorrance prosecutor's Office has expressed interest in participating in the police department'sE-Subpoena testtrial,and discussions for coordination are ongoing. Sincerely, ~e~~----~~- Chief of Police OF TORRANCE POLlCE DEPARTMENT JOHN J.NEU Ci-IIEFOF POUCE September 16,2011 Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justite Center 2l0W. Temple St., 11th Floor, Rm. 11-506 Los Angeles, CA90012 Dear Presiding Judge of the L.A. Sllperior Court: Incompliance with Califorma Penal Code requirements, the Torrance Police Department has reviewed the recommendations detailed in the 2010-2011 L.A. County Grand Jury Report ­ "High TechForeflsics andCyber. Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" and provides the following responses:
• R2

  Page 78
  Additional time is needed in order to allow the Board of Water and Power Commissioners sufficient time to consider the matter. The reports call upon the Board to serve as the responding "agency" for all recommendations, but three of them also require responses from the City Council and the Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System ("LACERSII) Board of Administration. Under the Los Angeles City Charter, the Board serves as "head" bf the Department, Charter § 600(b), and thus serves functionally as the "governing body" referenced in California Penal Code § 933(c) over matters within the Board's Charter authority. The Board is one of the citizen boards heading major City operating departments (others include Airports, Harbor, Fire, Police, Library, Public Works, and Recreation and Parks). Charter §§ 500(a), 600(a). The Board conducts regular meetings twice a month (1st & 3rd Tuesdays). Rules of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners, Rule 1 (Res. 011-223, March 1, 2011), although it can and sometimes does call special meetings. If the Board is the responding lIagency," it must approve the response. Board approval is given by majority vote of its members, Charter § 503(c), at a noticed meeting as required by the applicable open meetings law, the Ralph M. Brown Act. California Government Code §§ 54950 ef seq. The additional time requested will afford the Board sufficient opportunity to review analysis by Department staff in various functional areas and receive other input so that it can determine the responses to be made. The Board should be able to complete this work by the October 31 deadline being requested. Thomas S. Sayles President Board of Water and Power Commissioners c: Ronald O. Nichols General Manager 244674v2 3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CARMEN A. TRUTANICH RICHARD M. BRCWN CITYATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF WATER ANtl PCWER GENERAL COUNSEL LEGAL tllVISICJN FDR WATER AND POWER P.O. EltlX 61111 - SUITE 340 LtlS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90061-0100 HAND DELIVERED TELEPHONE (213) 367-4600 FAX (213) 3S7-461313 November 17, 2011 The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon 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 90012-3210 Alf Schonbach, Foreperson Civil Grand Jury County of Los Angeles Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple Street Room 11-506 Re: Status report on the progress of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles in responding to: Final Report -130) Whoa! The State of Public Pensions in Los Angeles County Assessment of the State of Pension Plans in Los Angeles County Phase II: Section 2 City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Employee Retirement Plan (pp. 254-265) Dear Presiding Judge Edmon and Foreperson Schon bach: AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER The Honorable Lee Smalley Edmon Alf Schonbach, Foreperson November 17, 2011 In a letter of November 1,2011, this Office indicated that it would keep the Court and the Grand Jury advised of the progress of this matter until the response of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners was filed. We can report that the Board considered a preliminary draft prepared by staff at its regular meeting on November 15, 2011. While it had been anticipated that all Board members would be present, only three (but still a quorum) were present. The draft response was discussed by the members present, but no action was taken at that time to approve a response. The Board will require additional time to consider its response and have the matter before the Board when more members are present. In consideration of the Holidays, the Board meets only once in December. The Board deferred consideration until a meeting in January. This Office will continue to keep the Court and the Grand Jury advised of the progress of this matter until the Board's response is filed. eneral Counsel Department of Water and Power cc: Thomas S. Sayles President Board of Water and Power Commissioners Ronald O. Nichols General Manager Department of Water and Power 246981v1 m~<-t;s~~ redondo B E A C H ( Police Department 401 Diamond Street, P.O. Box 639 tel 310379-2477 W. Joseph Leonardi Redondo Beach, California 90277-0639 fax 310372-0167 Chief of Police www.redondo.org August 8, 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 Subj: 2010-2011 CGJ Report Recommendations Madam:
• R2a

  Page 98
  E~tablish a "High Tech Forensics Bureau." Response 2a: The Torrance Police Department has already implemented this recommendation. A High Ttch Crimes detail, housed in the Detectives DIvision, was established in January 2010. A full-time detective is assigned to the detailasthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. The Department completed renovations to establish a state of the art computer forensics lab in August 2010 which houses the equipment and systems needed for digital evidence processing. Detective duties intiude:conductinginvestigations a.rid digitcilevidence recoveryort computers, cell phones and various electromc devices; performing surveillance video recovery and enha.p.cement investigations; providing expert witn.ess testimony in court; l:lnd assisting ta~k force members with cases and warmhtsat various locations around Los Angeles County. The detective is assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department's Internet Crimes AgaihstChildren (ICAC) Task Force and the United States Secret Service's Los Angeles Electromcs Crimes Task Force (LAECTF). He is a graduate of the National Computer F orensicInstitute "Basic Computer Evidence Recovery Traimng";has attained "ACE" certificationin Access Data's Forensic Tool Kit; and is trained in mobile phone and computer forensics, as well a.s advanced internet examinations; As ofMarch 2011,the detallhas coinpleted 41 forensic investigations with evidence retrieved from computers, cell phones, electronic video and audio, dIgital video recorders (DVR) and global positioning systems (OPS\ These investigations included criminal cases involving homicide, identity theft, narcotjcs, theft and sex crimes. Another detective has been assigned to the High Tech Crimes detail and is being trained accordingly, as the original Computer Forensics Lab investigator isonmedicl:llieave .. 3300 Civic Center Drive. Torrance, California 90503-5056 • Telephone 310/328-3456. Facsimile 310/618-5532 · ;. { Recommendation 2b. Updateregular law enforcement recruit and detectivetraining to I' include orientation, procedures, protocols and oth~r trai.ningwith respect to digital' eviden'ce. . ' . . Response 2b: The Torrance Police Departmenthas;:tlready i 111pletnented this recommendation. Personnel fromtheHigh Tech Crimes detail and Detectives Division periodically inform new and experienced patrol officers ofthe purpose and capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail. Presentation content inc~udes digital evidence recognition and preservation and(ih overview of what circumstances warrant call out ofthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. Additionally, Field Training Officers incorporate basic digitalevidence training for newly hired officers as circumstances arisein the field; i.e. theft ofGPS-enabledelectronic devices, call/text data for cell phones in possession ofknown criminals,etc. Policeoftlcer probationers are therefore exposed to hands-on learning oppofhmities regarding the recognition, preservation and use of digital evidence in everyday police work. .,
• R2b
  Updateregular law enforcement recruit and detectivetraining to include orientation, procedures, protocols and oth~r trai.ningwith respect to digital' eviden'ce. . ' . . Response 2b: The Torrance Police Departmenthas;:tlready i111pletnented this recommendation. Personnel fromtheHigh Tech Crimes detail and Detectives Division periodically inform new and experienced patrol officers ofthe purpose and capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail. Presentation content inc~udes digital evidence recognition and preservation and(ih overview of what circumstances warrant call out ofthe Computer Forensics Lab investigator. Additionally, Field Training Officers incorporate basic digitalevidence training for newly hired officers as circumstances arisein the field; i.e. theft ofGPS-enabledelectronic devices, call/text data for cell phones in possession ofknown criminals,etc. Policeoftlcer probationers are therefore exposed to hands-on learning oppofhmities regarding the recognition, preservation and use of digital evidence in everyday police work. .,
• R2c

  Page 99
  Include trainillg in digital evidence collection, analysis and use in "roll call" training. Response 2c:. The Torrance Police Department has already implemented this recommendation. As mentioned earlier,personnel from the High Tech Crimesdet(iil and Detectives Division periodically present digital evidence information to patrol staff. These presentations are made at daily patrolbriefings and heighten officer awareness of digital evidence impoliance, recognition and preservation. Patrol officers are also informed ofthe capabilities ofthe High Tech Crimes detail and under what circumstances the detail's specialized skills should be called out to a crime scene. Recommendation2d. Take stepsto~cquire the POST certification for High Tech training courses for forensic. examiners and cyber investigators to allow for reimbtirselDent of the costs. Respollse 2d: Therecormnendatiori is not applicable .. It is the Torrance PoliceDepartment's understanding that POST certification is the responsibility ofthe training provider. The department is not a provider ofHigh Tech training. Sincerely, ~"1-----­ ~n\(Neu Chief ofPolice C· I T YO F TORRANCE November 30, 2011 Mr. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury· Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 W. Temple St.; 11th FIQor, Rm. 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Cremer: This correspondence is in response to your letter dated November 18,2011 which noted that the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury had not received the required responses from the Torrance Police Department. . Copies ofthe Torrance Police Department's written response letters, as well as the confinnation receipt letters have been enclosed for your reference as follows: (1) "E-Subpoena, One Way to End the Paper Chase" response letter (1) "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" response letter (I) "E-Subpoena, One Way to End the Paper Chase" confinnation receipt letter (1) "High Tech Forensics and Cyber Security Crime Fighting in the Digital Age" confinnation receipt letter Please feel free to contact me, Kent Sentinella, Administrative Analyst at (310) 618 ...5677 should you require anything further. Sincerely, JOHN J.NEU ChiefofPolice 14~ Kent Sentirtella, Administrative Analyst Torrance Police Department . Enclosures ( 4) cc: Mr. Alf Schonbach, Foreperson 3300 Civic Center Drive-Torrance, California 90503-5056 • Telephone 310/618-5677 • Facsimile 310/618-5635 P Dpartment olia ier lMI.fI.... .........-----Quality People - Quality Service--­ a -..-...------­ Jeff A. Piper Chief of Police Serving the Communities of Whittier and Santa Fe Springs September 19, 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 RE: Response to Civil Grand Jury High Tech Forensics Recommendations Dear Presiding Judge, Please allow this correspondence to fulfill the requirements set forth in Penal Code Sections 933( c) and 933.05 in responding to the High Tech Forensics report submitted by the Civil Grand Jury.
• R3

  Page 80
  The timeframe for implementation will depend on the cost of the implementation and the ability to coordinate the requirements of the Information Technology Departments of the City of Redondo Beach and the District Attorney's Office. The Police Department does not have information technology personnel dedicated to the department and projects are based on priority need. The Redondo Beach Police Department agrees that the E-Subpoena system can be beneficial and improve procedure, but not for the reasons stated by the Grand Jury report. We disagree with some of assertions of the Grand Jury; they are not accurate as applied to the Redondo Beach Police Department. The Grand Jury uses the los Angeles Police Department and others as the litmus test for efficiency and effectiveness. One size does not fit all, and the report does not account for agencies that have instituted subpoena control with policy, procedure and other computer programs for many years. The Redondo Beach Police Department has instituted a monitored and controlled subpoena program for more than thirteen years. We adapted practices learned from the Torrance Police Department that implemented these programs before us. The report emphasizes the strict time requirements of arraignment and preliminary hearing as being one of the primary needs for the system. It posits that the DA's lack of knowledge of completed service is the reason for issuing subpoenas to all officers on a case. "When paper subpoenas are delivered and hand distributed, the DA has no timely confirmation of who is served. For example, if six officers investigate a crime, unless the prosecutor knows the lead officer receives their subpoena the DA often sends to all six officers involved." This is stated again on , item 7.a. Our experience is that two very different criteria affect the number of subpoenas and the timeliness of subpoena delivery that far exceeds the effects of confirmation. First, the filing deputy, and not the prosecutor for the preliminary hearing, determines the number of officers subpoenaed to a case. The prelim deputy often does not receive or see the case until the day of the prelim and does not determine officers' attendance. If the police department attempts to reduce the number of officers appearing, it is done through personal contact with the witness coordinator for the local office. Second, the three-day workweek affects the ability of the department to serve officers if the subpoenas arrive on or after the last workday of their schedule. When leave time is granted, this exacerbates the problem. The Redondo Beach Police Department retrieves its local subpoenas daily from the court and distributes them as soon as possible on the next available work day of the officers. More than 90% of all felony subpoenas for the Redondo Beach officers are from the Torrance Office. Delays do not occur for the majority of the department's subpoenas. A Court Liaison Officer dedicated to the retrieval, delivery, and proof of service of subpoenas manages our cases daily. The Court Liaison Officer confers with the witness coordinator in the Torrance DA's Office daily to reduce the number of officers called to cases. They work closely together, and they are effective. This combined with a Court Subpoena Database that has been used in our Department since about 1998 saves as much as $60,000 or more in costs per month. It is the personal contact and credibility ofthese persons that realizes the reductions. When our liaison officer attempts to achieve the same results with foreign courts in other parts of Los Angeles and Orange County, they meet with resistance and often cannot reduce the number of officers. This occurs even with evidence of proof of service. This is why we believe the comments of the report are not accurate regarding the controlling factor to reduce the number of officers subpoenaed to appear. With certain defense attorneys, the control is even less, as we believe they subpoena all officers to cause an economic disadvantage in an attempt to discourage going to trial by raising overtime costs. , Item 12 "Less manpower is needed to generate mail and manually track each subpoena." We believe that this will only be true if we are able to create an interface between our existing court tracking software and the e-Subpoena system and/or our Court Liaison Officer has the ability to receive notification of service in real time to allow adequate follow-up when subpoena timelines are critical. Their current involvement in service and validation of service for the DA will be impeded if the transactions are between the system and the officer only, and they require the Court Liaison Officer to run ad hoc queries to determine status. It is imperative that our management knows when the officer is subpoenaed and their response to the subpoena. , Item 16 "Several departments that have implemented e-Subpoena encourage their officers to check email on their days off." We know from previous labor issues in the City of Redondo Beach that this will cause labor objections and assertions that this violates FLSA de minimus rules. If the time lines of a court appearance are close, the department will have to make contact with the officer to give a verbal order with or without the e-Subpoena system. We are interested in determining how the system will deal with officers that are in long-term leave .f. , status or that are on leave. There are legitimate excusable circumstances that prevent officers' attendance at court. With our current procedures, we are aware of these circumstances and can assist in finding alternatives to mitigate them. "This new system also permits law enforcement management to track offending officers with a history of missed hearings or who intentionally run up court appearance overtime. Previously, such officers could not be disciplined, as the agency had no knowledge of officers who were abusing the system./I Again, the Grand Jury is making an assumption based on the LAPD and not on other agencies. We have long held our officers accountable to court appearances, and we have concern that the direct link between officer and the DA can lessen this accountability through the technology rather than improving it. We have attempted to contact the DA's Office regarding the requirements and process to implement the e-Subpoena system. We will attempt to implement the system as long as it enhances our ability to hold officers accountable for their court appearances. Sincerely, { j County of Los Angeles CIVIL GRAND JURY CLARA SHORTRIDGE FOLTZ CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 210 WEST TEMPLE STREET· ELEVENTH FLOOR· ROOM 11-506 • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 TELEPHONE (213) 893-1047' FAX (213) 229-2595 http://www.grandJury.cQ.la.ca.us/ November 18,2011 Chief Joe Payne South Pasadena Police Department 1422 Mission Street South Pasadena, California 91030 Dear Chief Payne: Pursuant to Penal Code §933, all Agencies cited in the 2010-2011 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report are required to respond to the recommendations provided in the Final Report within sixty days for elected officials and no longer than ninety days for public agencies. Please note, as oftoday's date the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury has not received· the required responses from your agency. If you have already responded to the recommendation(s) in the Final Report, please disregard this notice. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /! /J ~-:L- t-~~"-<'\. Bob Cremer, Chairperson, Continuity Committee 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Alf Schonbach, Foreperson 2011-2012 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury E..SUBPOENA ONE WAY TO END THE PAPER CHASE Committee Members Chairperson: Joseph H. Saner John A Rangel Susan Stetson METHODS AND PROCEDURES The CGJ reviewed DA prepared e-Subpoena presentation materials, an overview of the County's Information Systems Advisory Board (ISAB" Proactive Information Exchange (PIX) system, and several LEA e~Subpoena Policy/Procedure statements. The CGJ analyzed statistics of subpoenas issued by the DA during 2010 and prepared a Report of LEAs in descending order of number of subpoenas received. In addition, CGJ members met or spoke with representatives of the DA, ISAB and the following LEAs and City Attorneys to discuss the system:
• R4

  Page 84
  City of Bell Police Department 19. City of Manhattan Beach Police Department
• R5

  Page 84
  City of Bell Gardens Police Department 20. City of Monrovia Police Department
• R6

  Page 84
  City of Beverly Hills Police 21. City of Monterey Park Police Department Department
• R7

  Page 84
  City of Burbank Police Department 22. City of Pasadena Police Department
• R8

  Page 85
  City of Covina Police Department 23. City of Redondo Beach Police Department
• R9

  Page 85
  City of Culver City Police Department 24. City of San Fernando Police Department
• R10

  Page 85
  City of Gardena Police Department
• R11

  Page 85
  City of Glendale Police Department Department
• R12

  Page 85
  City of Glendora Police Department 26. City of South Pasadena Police Department
• R13

  Page 85
  City of I-!untington Park Police Department 27. City of Torrance Police Department
• R14

  Page 85
  City of Inglewood Police Department 28. City of West Covina Police Department
• R15

  Page 85
  City of Inglewood City Attorney
• R16
  City of Long Beach Police Department
• R17
  City of Los Angeles Fire Department
• R18

  Page 84
  City of Los Angeles Unified School
• R19
  City of Manhattan Beach Police Department
• R20

  Page 87
  The following is a Table of law enforcement agencies receiving at least one hundred fifty (150) subpoenas from the DA during the period October through December 2010 and their e-Subpoena implementation status: LOS ANGELES DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ISSUED LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBPOENAS AGENCIES RECEIVING AT LEAST 150 SUBPOENAS FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBERTHRU DECEMBER, 2010 No. e-Subpoena Agency Issued Status CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 2,128 Interested PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 988 GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT 903 HUNTINGTON PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT 685 BURBANK POLlCE DEPARTMENT 612 HAWTHORNE POLlCE DEPARTMENT 604 Interested WHiniER POLICE DEPARTMENT 593 SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT 537 In process LASD ­ VARIOUS 515 Implemented GARDENA POLlCE DEPARTMENT 501 DOWNEY POLlCE DEPARTMENT 490 Interested EL MONTE POLICE DEPARTMENT 474 Interested POMONA POLICE DEPARTMENT 456 Interested ALHAMBRA POLICE DEPARTMENT 433 L. A. CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 422 SOUTH GATE POLICE DEPARTMENT 421 Interested TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT 403 MONTEREY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT 366 WEST COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 364 L. A. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PO 318 L. A. COUNTY CORONER 300 Interested EL SEGUNDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 274 Interested MONTEBELLO POLlCE DEPARTMENT 271 In process L. A. COUNTY PROBATION 255 Interested SAN FERNANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 216 MANHATIAN BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 189 BEVERLY HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT 182 COVINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 176 MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 168 GLENDORA POLICE DEPARTMENT 163 SAN GABRIEL POLICE DEPARTMENT 163 BELL GARDENS POLICE DEPARTMENT 159 REDONDO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 159 BELL POLICE DEPARTMENT 157 LAPD ­ VARIOUS 155 Implemented SOUTH PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 154 26 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY City of Covina (Police Department) City of Gardena (Police Department) City of Glendale (Police Department) City of Glendora (Police Department) City of Huntington Park (Police Department) City of Los Angeles Fire Department City of Los Angeles Unified School District (School Police) City of Manhattan Beach (Police Department) City of Monrovia (Police Department) City of Monterey Park (Police Department) City of Pasadena (Police Department) City of Redondo Beach (Police Department) City of San Fernando (Police Department) City of San Gabriel (Police Department) City of South Pasadena (Police Department) City of Torrance (Police Department) City of West Covina (Police Department) City of Whittier (Police Department) 2 City of Inglewood (City Attorney) 3 City of Los Angeles (Police Department) County of Los Angeles (Sheriffs Department) 4 County of Los Angeles (Sheriffs Department) 5 County of Los Angeles (District Attorney) 28 2010·2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY . , THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 30 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY Police Department 333 Olympic Drive Santa Monica, California 90401 City of Santa Monica® November 29,2011 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 90012-3210 Dear Presiding Judge: Pursuant to California Penal Code section §933, the Santa Monica Police Department hereby responds to certain sections of the County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury's re
• R21
  City of Monterey Park Police Department
• R22
  City of Pasadena Police Department
• R23
  City of Redondo Beach Police Department
• R24
  City of San Fernando Police Department
• R25

  Page 85
  City of San Gabriel Police
• R26
  City of South Pasadena Police Department
• R27
  City of Torrance Police Department
• R28
  City of West Covina Police Department
• R29

  Page 85
  City of Whittier Police Department 22 2010·2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY c. Improved control using case management systems versus ad hoc e-mail d. PIX ensures reliable delivery/return receipt and a standard interface to different law enforcement agency systems All DA, Public Defender, APD, and City Attorneys/City Prosecutors in the future can use the same message formats and delivery mechanisms.