📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Los Angeles County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Civil Grand Jury County of LOS Angeles

Published: June 30, 2011 20 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 20 findings

F1 Page 37

The e-Subpoena system provides prosecutorial and defense agencies with an automated means to serve law enforcement officers. Currently, the following agencies use the system: a. District Attorney’s Office b. Alternate Public Defender (APD)1 The Los Angeles Public Defender is developing this capability.

F2 Page 37

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Long Beach City Prosecutor also electronically subpoena officers, but their requests are sent internally with their respective cities’ systems. To the CGJ’s knowledge, most other City Attorneys/City Prosecutors are using paper based subpoenas.

F3 Page 37

E-Subpoena is a means of delivering subpoenas to law enforcement personnel throughout the County electronically and receiving “proof of service” automatically. Prior to development of e-Subpoena, subpoenas were either mailed, hand carried or sent to the Justice Data Interface Controller (JDIC) printer at the law enforcement agency. This method was slow and did not provide the DA with proof that the officer/deputy was served.

F4 Page 37

The e-Subpoena process begins when a Deputy DA or APD inputs in their respective Case Management System (CMS) when an officer is needed in court on a specific date and time. CMS generates an electronic message to the officer. Although more complicated, this is essentially an e-mail. The message is sent to PIX, which then routes the message to the law enforcement agency. Depending upon the technology used by the law enforcement agency when delivering the message to the officer, a “proof of service” is returned via PIX to the originator when: a. The officer opens their e-mail b. The officer positively responds that they received it PIX provides the secure system for sending and receiving messages among agencies. The system is also used to notify an officer when they are no longer needed to appear and/or for rescheduling. JDIC-received and paper subpoenas are manually logged and tracked by the law enforcement agency, and no automated “proof of service” is returned to the originator. An overview provided by the DA describes the system benefits: a. More reliable than paper and regular e-mail b. Complete logging of delivery and receipt 1 The Alternate Public Defender is Court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants who cannot be represented by the Public Defender because of a conflict of interest. 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.

F5 Page 38

E-Subpoena was started approximately five (5) years ago with LAPD.

F6 Page 38

Electronic notice of delivery and receipt occurs between PIX and the following agencies: a. LASD b. LAPD c. Long Beach Police Department d. Inglewood Police Department e. Culver City Police Department f. Montebello Police Department The last three (3) agencies on the preceding list use a third-party vendor that supply and maintain the technology for LEA delivery and receipt. At least one LEA reported that the implementation took one (1) month followed by a two (2) month period of running the systems in parallel. The biggest implementation problem encountered was officer resistance to change.

Additional benefits are: a. Electronic service reduces officer overtime from having to subpoena more officers than actually needed (blanket subpoenas) since the DA can now verify which officer(s) were served. b. With planned court closures, travel time as well as court overtime are reduced. c. Because the officer is positively served and will appear, the DA, Public Defender, and APD reduce their case continuance costs. d. Accuracy is improved through officer validation; the sender ensures that the correct officer is served. e. The law enforcement agency’s subpoena control personnel can review and manage multiple requests more efficiently. f. Risk of loss of JDIC-printed or paper subpoenas is reduced. g. Follow-up phone calls are minimized. h. Formal audit trail of service is provided. 24 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY i. Management follow-up and auditing statistics are available.

F8 Page 39

E-Subpoena results in fewer continuances/dismissals, swifter justice for crime victims, decreased criminal case backlog, and potentially reduces incarceration time and costs.

F9 Page 39

Different internet standards are used by various agencies and a third-party vendor. For example, messaging protocol and identification standards exist but are not used consistently by all departments. Currently, PIX must convert e-subpoenas into at least four (4) different technologies in order to send them to different law enforcement agencies.

F10 Page 39

Although the CGJ could not locate the source of the information, it noted from public statements that e-Subpoena resulted in significant savings to LAPD in court overtime. LAPD representatives explained that due to the different components of court overtime (number of cases filed, number of officers subpoenaed, etc.), these savings could not be calculated precisely.

F11 Page 39

Several departments reported that court affairs/subpoena control personnel time spent performing subpoena control was reduced by 50%, freeing personnel to work on other critical department functions. In addition, the volume of paper and postage was reduced 50-65%.

F12 Page 39

Less manpower is needed to generate mail and manually track each subpoena. In larger departments, less time is spent locating officers who have been transferred.

F13 Page 39

Less time is spent attempting to determine if an officer was served.

F14 Page 39

In this time of municipal budget constraints, whatever can be done to streamline the process and reduce court overtime is desirable.

F15 Page 39

Ten (10) cities within the County use the City Attorney/City Prosecutor to prosecute misdemeanors2. In cities where e-Subpoena is installed, some City Attorneys/City Prosecutors are still issuing paper subpoenas.

F16 Page 39

Several departments that have implemented e-Subpoena encourage their officers to check e-mail on their days off, although requiring that may violate Fair Labor Standards Act de minimus rules.

F17 Page 39

One LEA that has not implemented e-Subpoena was concerned about the actual direct and indirect costs of the system.

F18 Page 39

A concern raised was the situation where an officer is subpoenaed at the last minute. In these cases, the subpoena control officer would be required to contact the subpoena recipient regardless of whether the department was using paper copies or e-Subpoena.

F19 Page 39

At least one LEA was concerned that their city was behind the technology curve and may not have the infrastructure to handle e-Subpoena. The District Attorney prosecutes misdemeanors, as well as felonies, for the remaining 78 cities as well as the unincorporated areas of the County.

F20 Page 40

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 OCTOBER THRU 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 POLICE DEPARTMENT 612 HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT 604 Interested WHITTIER POLICE DEPARTMENT 593 SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT 537 In process LASD - VARIOUS 515 Implemented GARDENA POLICE DEPARTMENT 501 DOWNEY POLICE 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 PD 318 L. A. COUNTY CORONER 300 Interested EL SEGUNDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 274 Interested MONTEBELLO POLICE DEPARTMENT 271 In process L. A. COUNTY PROBATION 255 Interested SAN FERNANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT 216 MANHATTAN 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

Recommendations 5

R1
Page 31

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.
R2
Page 32

Encourage the City Attorney/City Prosecutor to use the system in cities where the Police Department is using e-Subpoena.
R3
Page 32

LASD and LAPD evaluate electronically transmitting other documents such as police reports and probable cause determinations3 among law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the Court.
R4
Page 32

LASD to expand implementation of filing Pitchess motions electronically. A Pitchess motion defines those portions of a deputy’s personnel file which may be made available to defense counsel.
R5
Page 32

The DA staff is encouraged to conduct an e-Subpoena training class for court liaison/subpoena control officers and encourage departments still receiving paper subpoenas to implement e-Subpoena. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE California Penal Code Sections4 §933(c) and §933.05 requires a written response to all Recommendations contained in this Report which shall be made no later than ninety (90) days after the Civil Grand Jury publishes its Report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Respond to: 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 All responses for the 2010 - 2011 CGJ Report’s Recommendations must be submitted to the above address on or before the end of business September 30, 2011. Responses are required from: Recommendation Number(s) Responding Agency 1 City of Alhambra (Police Department) City of Bell (Police Department) City of Bell Gardens (Police Department) City of Beverly Hills (Police Department) City of Burbank (Police Department) 3 Probable Cause determination is a LEA prepared, Court approved document which permits an agency to detain a suspect. Reference California Penal Code Sections §933(c) and §933.05 at the beginning of this 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report 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 Acronyms APD Alternate Public Defender CGJ Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury CMS Case Management System DA Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office ISAB Los Angeles County Information Systems Advisory Board JDIC Justice Data Interface Controller LAPD Los Angeles Police Department LASD Los Angeles Sheriffs Department LEA Law enforcement Agency PIX Proactive Information Exchange THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 30 2010-2011 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY HIGH TECH FORENSICS AND CYBER SECURITY CRIME FIGHTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE “We have to do better at what we do. Our public deserves it.” Committee Members Chairperson - Meg George Grace Hernandez Beverly T. Kishimoto Max E. Van Doren HIGH TECH FORENSICS AND CYBER SECURITY CRIME FIGHTING IN THE DIGITAL AGE “We have to do better at what we do. Our public deserves it.”1 SUMMARY The use of digital evidence to successfully prosecute crimes is becoming critically important. In part, this is due to the proliferation in the use of digital devices. Specific training in the collection and processing of digital evidence is needed, as is the acquisition of the hardware and software required to analyze the evidence. Computers, cell phones and other digital devices are increasingly intertwined with the commission of crimes, raising the importance of the resources and priority that must be given to cyber security, cyber investigations and high tech forensic2 examinations to provide public safety. These cyber and forensic services are provided within Los Angeles County (LAC) and its cities by regional high tech crimes task forces (RTFs) (RTFs cover more than one county.), local high tech crimes task forces, police department high tech forensic labs or through private companies. In addition seventeen (17) municipal police agencies have some in-house high tech forensic crime capability. LAC is home to critical infrastructure, businesses and industries that are vulnerable to cyber attack. It must be in a position to provide response support to such attacks, so that such business and industry will identify Los Angeles as a safe and welcoming place to locate. Those who harm us (be it crooks, cyber terrorists, or nation-states) are highly motivated and continuously improving. To counter this assault effectively we must be highly motivated and continuously improving to be effective in the efforts to: provide public safety, catch the perpetrators and successfully prosecute them. This requires vision, commitment, equipment, training and resources. Technology is evolving at a rapid pace requiring frequent upgrades to equipment, software and training. Funding of high tech forensics, cyber investigation and cyber security in LAC has largely been through government transfers (grants from State and Federal programs). This source of funding has been decreasing and continues to be under pressure due to continuing cuts and constraints. Borrowing the endowment concept from the University system, a possible new source of funding might be the establishment within law enforcement of a High Tech Forensics Examination – Cyber Investigations – Cyber Badge Endowment Program (Endowed Badge). The Endowed Badge (EB) would be awarded on a rotating basis. Funding of each EB would be through a public private partnership, and the EB could be named by the benefactor; e.g., Port of Los Angeles EB, Apple EB, Harry Potter EB, Warner Brothers EB, Wells Fargo EB, Exxon EB, DWP EB, etc. Business and industry has a vested interest in a safe City/County in which to do business; hence, there may be interest from many sectors to participate in funding an EB and 1 Graham, Gordon “Affairs in Government 2010. Some Thoughts on Risk Management,” December 3, 2010 2 In the Report, High Tech Forensics concerns digital information; it does not include DNA or fingerprint analysis naming one of the EBs. Eight (8) initial Endowed Badges are visualized. The eight (8) are comprised of five (5) EBs where each LAC Board of Supervisors District sets up and oversees the public-private partnership funding; plus three (3) EBs, where each of the City of Los Angeles Proprietary Departments ( Department Of Water and Power, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport (LAWA)) sets up and oversees the public-private partnership funding for a total of eight (8) EBs. The EB concept is to use a combination of government and private funds to pay for training of sworn officers in the arena of high tech forensics-cyber investigations and cyber security. There are legal issues to explore and logistical issues to analyze. The example of the partnership between Los Angeles and Microsoft in the area of fighting piracy may provide insight of a process to be followed. PURPOSE The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) investigated the level of engagement and commitment of government entities within LAC in the prevention and prosecution of high tech crimes, as well as in the use of digital evidence in crime fighting efforts. Computers, cell phones and other digital devices are increasingly intertwined with the commission of crimes, raising the importance of resources and priority that must be given to cyber security, cyber investigations and high tech forensic examinations to provide public safety. In view of the shrinking budgets at all government levels, this Report recommends how to sustain the current level of cyber security, cyber investigations and high tech forensic examinations in the County and cities, while further developing the capability and staying ahead of the curve.