HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2006-08-14 #I
AGENDA REPORT
e
DATE:
August 14,2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Chief Jeff Kirkpatrick, Police Department
SUBJECT: Mayor's Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, "Oversight
of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies, Resolving the
Dichotomy!"
SUMMARY OF REOUEST:
This Mayor's Response Letter has been prepared for Mayor Larson's signature. It echoes a similar
Response Letter submitted by the Chief of Police. The Chief's finding, in response to the Orange
County Grand Jury's report, are a mix of agreement and disagreement with the findings and explains
the reasons for each.
BACKGROUND:
e
A subcommittee of the Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) requested that the City complete a survey
on their behalf on March 20, 2006. The survey, "Citizen's Oversight Board Survey," was a prelude to
a full study and report completed by the OCGJ on the subject of citizen's oversight of law enforcement
activities.
The Orange County Grand Jury (OCGJ) submitted the report, dated June 22, 2006, and included a
demand letter for the Mayor's review. The report, "Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement
Agencies, Resolving the Dichotomy!" discusses a study performed by the 2005-2006 OCGJ
encouraging additional citizen oversight of law enforcement activities throughout Orange County, The
OCGJ has no power in this study other than to recommend and increase community awareness.
However, Penal Code ~933.05(f) demands a response from the Mayor and Chief of Police. to issues
and recommendations brought by the OCGJ.
The OCGJ established the following findings: goals to emulate best practices and to have law
enforcement agencies submit to independent reviews of policies, procedures, and compliance. It cited
additional goals directing law enforcemeut to meet the changing needs of Orange County; and to use
public/private sector management techniques such as best practices, self-assessment, and independent
audits to improve law enforcement agency monitoring. The OCGJ proposes several costly techniques
to implement oversight, but offers no funding availability to pay for them.
To further its findings, the OCGJ recommended police departments adopt best practices guidelines;
and, near-term independent review of policies, procedures and compliance.
e The drafted response, argues the issues and recommendations citing the current existence and
implementation of each of the findings with existing resources available to the community and
measured responses to the recommendations. The Seal Beach Police Department meets or exceeds the
suggestions of the OCGJ. AGENDA rrEM I
e
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City unless it chooses to overlap existing oversight practices, policies,
and implementations with redundant similar practices and policies. None of the OCGJ redundant
practices would have any funding resources other than from the city's general fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Mayor receive the OCGJ Response Letter for signature and have staff
forward it to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Orange County.
~
e
Agenda Item _
Attachments:
1. OCGJ letter to Mayor Antos, dated June 22, 2006
2. OCGJ letter to Chief of Police Kirkpatrick, dated June 22, 2006
3. 2005-2006 OCGJ survey, "Citizen's Oversight Board Survey" dated March 20,2006
4. 2005-2006 OCGJ report, "Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies. Resolving
a Dichotomy!"
5. Mayor's Response Letter, dated August 14, 2006 - prepared for signature
6. Chief of Police Response Letter, dated August 14, 2006
7. Penal Code ~~933, 933.05
e
.. ,..
e
",-.:fe' 01'
0~~'9~
',0 ';:':I:S'j')~\\-"':'~'?, ',10
'0 ~':,.. ,try
0.<;>' '4 '.~
!.1F:Op..~
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 .714/834-3320
FAX 714/834-5555
June 22, 2006
Mayor Charles Antos
City of Seal Beach
211 811I Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
e
Dear Mayor:
Enclosed is a copy of the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Oversight of Orange County Law
Enforcement Agencies, Resolving" Dichotomy/" Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(1), a copy of the report is
being provided to you at least two working days prior to its public release. Please note that, "No officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public
release of the final report." (Emphasis added.) It is required that you provide a response to each of the findings
and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b),
copy attached.
For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, provide a schedule for future
implementation. In addition, by the end of March of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being
made on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all
recommendations are implemented.
It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Nancy Wieben Stock, Presiding Judge
of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy and an
electronic format (pDF preferred) mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa
Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, June 27, 2006, in compliance with Penal Code
933, copy attached. The due date then is September 25, 2006.
Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3)
pennits an extension of time up to six montha from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in
writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court,
with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury.
We tentatively plan to issue the public release on June 27. Upon public release, the report will be available on the
Grand Jury web site (www.oclU'andiurv.orl!t
~
BF:dv
e
Enclosures
Grand Jury Repo.t
Penal Code 933, 933.05
e
e
e
-z-
"'<{O.?
.;;~-?
::; ::~> __-~~ '1..
o j"-;;.)ii\.\'-"~' 0
U ~,"r. trJ
0.." '.. .,'<'
lefFO?:"'"
ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY
700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST. SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 .714/834.3320
FAX 714/834.5555
June 22, 2006
Chief Jeffrey Kirkpa1rick
City of Seal Beach Police Department
911 Seal Beach Blvd.
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Chief Kirkpa1rick:
Enclosed is a copy of the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Oversight of Orange County Law
Enforcement Agencies, Resolving" Dichotomyl" Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f), a copy of the report is
being provided to you at least two working days prior to its public release. Please note that, "No officer, agency,
department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public
release of the final report." (Emphasis added.) It is requested that you provide a response to each of the findings
and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b),
copy attached,
For each Grand Jury recommendation accepted and not implemented, provide a schedule for future
implementation. In addition, by the end of March of each subsequent year, please report on the progress being
made on each recommendation accepted but not completed. These annual reports should continue until all
reconunendations are implemented.
It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Nancy Wieben Stock, Presiding Judge
of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy and an
electronic format (pDF preferred) mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa
Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, June 27, 2006, in compliance with Penal Code
933, copy attached. The due date then is September 25, 2006.
Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3)
permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in
writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court,
with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury.
We tentatively plan to issue the public release on June 27. Upon public release, the report will be available on the
Grand Jury web site (www.ocl!I'andiurv.orJ[).
BF:dv
Enclosures
Grand Jury Report
Penal Code 933, 933.05
March 20, 2006
Mr. Fritz von CoelIn
Member, 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re.: March 6, 2006 Citizen's Oversight Board SUNey of the Orange County Grand
Jury
e
Dear Mr. von Coelln:
This letter and completed survey is the Seal Beach Police Department's
response to the 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury's survey considering the
appropriateness of a Citizen's Oversight Board for Orange County law enforcement
agencies. Thank you in advance for your patience while we compiled the requested
information.
The Seal Beach Police Department is one of the many current Orange County
law enforcement agencies enjoying a long history of cooperation between individual
agencies, the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriffs Association (OCCSA), and the
Orange County Grand Jury. Additionally, the Seal Beach Police Department is a
signatory agency, since 1990, to the OCCSA's Protocol #105 - Operational &
Procedural Protocol on Officer Involved Shootings. This protocol provides for the
outside and independent investigation of all such incidents.
Please contact me at (562) 799-4123 if I can be of fur1:tler assistance.
Sincerely,
e
Jeffrey C. Kirkpatrick
Chief of Police
1
SURVEY
e
Governance Structure:
. Who hires your police chief? The City of Seal Beach City Manager hires and
appoints the police chief.1
. To whom does your police chief report? The City of Seal Beach Police Chief
reports directly to the City Manager. 2
Officer Involved Incidents 'officer involved shootinas or criminal actsl
. Who investigates officer involved incidents? Since officer involved shootings
generally involve multiple considerations, it is recognized that several separate,
but parallel and often overlapping investigations may be conducted. J The
agency h'aving original jurisdiction (primary agency) over the location of the
shooting should have primary authority over the investigation. While cooperation
among involved agencies is critical, control of the investigation should remain
with the primary agency with jurisdiction over the location.4 An uninvolved
agency will respond by request to the scene of any police shooting. The
uninvolved agency will conduct an independent investigation and seek legal
review of the incident for the exclusive purpose of determining if there is criminal
action on the pat of any person(s) involved in the shooting incident. 5
. What is the process including discipline and appeals? The City of Seal _
Beach has created an exhaustive and thorough process through which -
employees are disciplined and by which a disciplined employee may appeal. 6. 7
Please refer to City of Seal Beach Council Policy Administrative Directive, 9200-
18, pages 1-19; and the City of Seal Beach Official Charter, Article IX, 9911, et,
a/.
. If there is a written policy and procedure, please provide a copy to us.
Copies of each referenced endnote have been included.
. Please provide us with statistics regarding occurrences of officer involved
incidents and disposition in the following areas:
o Internal complaints for the last three years
o Eight
o Six sustained, two unfounded
o The sustained complaints warranted one counseling, one
suspension from duty, two written reprimands, one termination.
and one resignation in lieu of termination.
o Citizen complaints for the last three years
o Five
o Two unfounded, two exonerated, one not sustained
o No disciplinary action was warranted
. Oversight of officer involved incident investigations and disposition:
o Who provides oversight? Any or alf of the following, beginning with the
Chief of Police, the City Manager, and in the event of discipline, the City of
2
e
e
e
e
Seal Beach Civil Service Commission, the City of Seal Beach City
Council, the State Mediation & Conciliation Service, or ultimately the State
court system. 8
o How is the final disposition of each incident communicated to your
community? Communicating the final resolution, disposition, and
outcome of each incident to the community is usually incident specific,
depending on the type of incident, contemporary community awareness,
and govemed by restrictive legal mandates.
Califomia Penal Code ~832. 7 requires Chiefs and Sheriffs to notify
complainants about the disposition of complaints. Terminology similar to
"appropriate administrative action has been taken... " without being more
specific is acceptable. Disclosing the specific disciplinary action taken is
unlawful pursuant to Evidence Code '1043. Citizen complaints are
generally restricted to little more than advising the complainant that we
investigate their complaint to conclusion.
Additionally, the Califomia Govemment Code chapter known as the
Peace Officer Bill of Rights restricts much of what can be communicated. 9
The Seal Beach Police Department Policy Manual ~102010 - Personnel
Complaint Procedure, and ~~1020.81- Confidentiality of Personnel Files
cites that all investigations of personnel complaints shall be considered
confidential peace officer personnel files. The contents of such files shall
not be revealed to other than the involved emnloyee or authorized
personnel except pursuant to lawful process. 1
I City of Seal Beach Council Policy Administrative Directive, fi200-2
2 City of Seal Beach Council Polley Administrative Directive, fi200-2
3 OCCSA Protocol #105 - Operational & Procedural Protocol on Officer Involved Shootings, 94
· OCCSA Protocol #105 - Operational & Procedural Protocol on Officer Involved Shootings, 94.1
5 OCCSA Protocol #105 _ Operational & Procedural Protocol on Officer Involved Shootings, 94.1,8
8 City of Seal Beach Council Policy Administrative Directive, 9200-18, pages 1-19
7 City of Seal Beach Official Charter, Article IX, fi911, at ai,
8 City of Seal Beach Council Policy Administrative Directive, 9200-18, pages 1-19
9 California Govemment Code 9fi3300-3313 - Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act
1D Seal Beach Police Department Policy Manual 51020 - Personnel Complaint Procedure
"Seal Beach Police Department Policy Manual 991020.81 Confidentiality of Personnel Flies
3
e
e
e
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
-1/-
Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
ResoMng a D/chotomyl
U As << Law Enforcement Officer....
I recognize the b<<dge of my office as a symbol of public faith,
and I accept it as a public trust to be held
so long as I <<m true to the ethics of the police smnce. U
Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
1.
Summary
r-
I
,
,
Acronyms
Why wait until there is a highly publicized and
criticized officer-involved event that results in the
hasty, emotional creation of a citizen oversight
commission? Although Orange County history may
not demonstrate an overwhelming need, long term
interests of residents may best be served by
independent monitoring prior to such an event.
Board of Supervisors
BOS
CALEA
Commission on
Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies
Law Enforcement Agency
(Agencies)
Orange County Sheriffs
Department
i
,
I
I
i
I
__.J
I LEA
Other than the Orange County grand jury, there is no I
formal citizen oversight of county and city law I
enforcement agencies (LEAs). Although there is no l OCSD
statutory authority that requires a grand jury to accept I
resident's complaints, the practice of Orange County POST
grand juries has been to do so. The California
Department of Justice also allows grand juries to act in
such a capacity as it relates to complaints regarding LEAs. The complaint form is
available to residents online at www.ocgrandjuJY.org: however, not all complaints
received are acted upon by' grand juries.
Califomia Peace Officers'
Standards and Trainin~
Advocates believe that citizen oversight improves visibility of and accountability by
LEAs. Orange County cities and LEAs c6nsider current oversight to be adequate and
citizen oversight groups redundant, (1) because LEAs are effectively enforcing the law
and providing public safety while adhering to policies and procedures and (2) because of
the many existing criminal justice system 9versight agencies, community outreach
programs, evolving policies and procedures, intemal complaint procedures, and the
election process. In addressing this dichotomy between advocacy groups and [;EAs, the
2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury found that:
1.1 Current practices for improving county and city LEAs' policies and procedures
may not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best'
practices.
1.2 Past independent reviews of LEAs' practices have been unique, limited reviews
rather than periodic reviews of policies, procedures and compliance.
Page 10f 14
'.
. .. 't.. ~~nge County Grand Jury 2005-2006
1.3 Using public/private sector management techniques such as best practices, self- e
assessment, and independent audits would improve LEA monitoring (as opposed
to citizen oversight boards which are subject to political pressure).
1.4 The grand jury faces significant limitatioIl,9 when considering and responding to
citizen complaints about LEAs, including time constraints, lack of law enforcement
and/or legal experience, and response contents.
2. Introduction and Purpose of the Study
Residents have the right to reasonable treatment at the hands of law enforcement,
acknowledging that there are occasions where extreme measures by officers are
warranted. Recent exposure of the Grand Jury to -individual concerns of alleged abuse at
the hands of Orange County LEAs demonstrated an absence of a formal citizen review of
such events.
The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a need for citizen oversight to
improve community visibility of LEAs, and to explore alternative oversight mechanisms.
3. Method of Study
To conduct this study, the Grand Jury:
· Interviewed members of LEAs, other Orange County residents, and oversight
agencies outside of Orange County
e
:0 :R\;;.l';,..t.;tl ,-w.r":w~~ ...t....oli..:oo r.i.i;:.l...k;,-i.Ui~"~.i<:=6.:iiJlng Ui..c;&~ghi:iiii:'-''!...Uii~&& C:uid
laws
· Surveyed LEAs regarding policies and procedures, complaint processes, and
existing oversight mechanisms
· Participated in a "call-out", a "ride-along", and tours, including Coroner Reviews,
an autopsy, forensics, pathology, jails and other LEA operationS
4. Background
In general, LEAs establish a system of plimned actions (control system) that are built into
processeslprocedures to provide reasonable assurance of achieving effectiveness and -
efficiency of operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Monitoring is the external oversight of the control system by management or other parties
outside a process. Ongoing monitoring may involve analysis/reviews by other
employees, e.g., many LEAs include personnel assigned to risk management and internal
affairs units. Monitoring may also be independent evaluations conducted by citizen
oversight organizations external to a LEA, e.g., police commissions and grand juries.
e
Page 2 of j.4
Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
e
The International Association of Chiefs of Police publication "Police Accountability and
Citizen Review-A Leadership Opportunity for Police Chiefs" outlines LEA leader actions
to understand and help implement oversight mechanisms. According to this report:
"Public concerns about racial profiling, excessive use of force, deliberate violations of
sanctioned evidence handling procedures and corruption create mistrust. When events
such as these take center stage, communities begin to question the integrity of their
police agencies."
Although recognizing that LEA leaders must take a proactive approach, most LEAs in
Orange County do not have community-recognized, independent citizen oversight
mechanisms.
4.1. Intemal Monitoring
Several oversight process options exist internally within California LEAs to assure that
policies and procedures are appropriate, that training is adequate, and that officers meet
standards:
e
Investi~ations: Detectives conduct an investigation of an officer-involved event or
complaint to determine criminality. All LEAs in Orange County have adopted the
Operational and Procedural Protocol "Establish Protocol for Officer Involved Shootings",
established in 1990 by the Orange County Chiefs' of Police and Sheriffs Association.
Based on this protocol, an LEA requests that the District Attorney's Bureau of
Investigation or another LEA conduct the investigation.
Internal Affairs: An internal affairs unit conducts separate administrative investigations
into officer-involved events that allege misconduct on the part of an officer. LEA leaders
review these investigations and take applicable actions.
Professional Standards: A professional standards unit conducts independent
investigations to determine if there are issues with policies, procedures, and training.
Recommendations to improve practices are submitted to the LEA leader for subsequent
action.
Complaints - Internal and Community: Internal complaints are generated from within a
department by employees. Complaints are also accepted from the community. These
complaints are investigated and the results are communicated to the complainant. As
required by California Penal Code, every LEA has a complaint procedure and annually
reports statistics to the California Department of Justice.
e
4.2 Citizen Monitoring
To better understand monitoring through the use of citizen oversight, the following quote
is taken from the "Re~ew of National Police Oversight Models for The Eugene Police
Commission" :
Page 3 of :1.4
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
"... the key attributes of those providing oversight must be credibility, integrity, fairness,
pragmatism, openness, and good judgment. Much like judges in a court of law, those
providing police oversight must maintain a reputation for scrupulous fairness and
reasoned judgment. Their decisions must persuade persons with very different
perspectives. What the formulating and appointing authorities should strive to achieve
is that at the end of the day both the community firebrand and the staunchest member of
the police union will be able to agree, even if they cannot agree on anything else, that the
decisions of the oversight body are fair and made in good faith."
e
Citizen monitoring takes on many forms which reflect lhe needs md concerns of the
individual communities. Several reports provide the following models of oversight:
Review: A citizen oversight organization receives complai,tlts from the community md
reviews the c;:ompleted investigation file. This review resuIts'in a recommendation to the
LEA leader that the complaint is sustained, not sustained, or that further investigation is
required. A grmd jury is an example of such a review organization.
Investigative: A citizen oversight organization has the power to conduct its own
investigation of m event or complaint to reduce conflicts of interest that may occur
during an internal investigation by an LEA. Findings are directed to the LEA leader.
IndE:Pendent Consultant: An independent consultant or special counsel evaluates an LEA
in its entirety to m~ judgments over time regarding how well the department
minimizes the risk of peace officer misconduct, identifies and corrects patterns and _
practices of unconstitutional and illegal behavior, and finds solutions to systemic failures. ..
It is performance-based, examining how individual officers perform, how supervisors and
..-. _.:: ."__- :...-.-.-.:-.~ -.--_~'!-..--_-+"-=T!"'A -:-:.'=':"'"'::-==~::!-
....1............................ ...........rv.....-' -.....- .......... .....- -- ... -.--0-- ---..
4.:U. National AssocIation for Civilian OVersight of Law Enforcement Agencies
This is an association of civilian oversight professionals which provides resources
for creation and maintenance of oversight. The objectives are to encourage change
and improve relationships between residents and police, shape "accountability
dialogue", and model the behavior desired in LEAs. According to this national
associanon: '
"...the relationship between police and community - particularly the minority
community - continues to be one of the most critical social issues facing this
country. The number of civilian oversight agencies in the U.S. has significantly
increased. Of the nation's 100 largest cities, 71 have citizen review mechanisms.
"It is recognized that the majority of law enforcement officers strive, often
under dangerous and demanding circumstances, to carry out their duties in a
restrained, lawful and professional manner. ...Citizens want to feel secure that
poliCe officers are in the community to serve and protect all citizens of that
community. We believe that citizens have a right to assurance that adequate
mechanisms are available to review and investigate questionable or
unacceptable actions of law enforcement officers."
e
Page 4.of 14
oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
e
4.2.2 Grand Jury DverslgJ1t
By California law, grllI1:d juries have three basic functions:
· To weigh criminal charges and determine whether indictments should be
returned
. To weigh allegations of misconduct against public officials and determine
whether to present formal accusations requesting their removal from office
. To act as the public's watchdog by investigating and reporting upon the
affairs of local government
The grand jury, as the public's .watchdog, may!ev!-t;!w the ~perations of the Orange
COUIl.ty Sheriffs Department (OCSD), PrQbation Department, District Attorney,
Puplic Defender, and municipal police departments. In addition, California
Department of Justice policy states that:
".. .local government will be primarily responsible for citizen complaints against
law enforcement agencies or employees of law enforcement agencies, and that
appropriate local resources (e.g. sheriff or police department, dishict attorney,
citizens' review commission and/or ptmd iUfJI in the area of iurisdiction) be
utilized for resolution of such complaints prior to a request for intervention by the
Attorney General." (Emphasis added.)
The grand jury also provides oversight of LEAs by virtue of a resident's complaint
procedure. Although the grand jury is not required to accept complaints, it does so
as a practice. In response to these complaints, the grand jury may not act as an
ombudsman for individuals but may investigate such complaints. (The complaint
form is available online at www.ocgrandiw:y.or~.)
The grand jury's only method of communication authorized by statute is via a
published report after approval of release by the Superior Court. Such reports are
released only when a grand jury makes recommendations to governmental
agencies and do not function as a direct response to complainants.
Another hindrance to the grand jury is the limited time to review complaints. The
Superior Court has the authority to order the impaneling after consultation with
the grand jury foreperson, acting on behaH of the panel, the District Attorney, and
the Presi~ing Judge of the Superior Court. Forty-eight percent (48%) of California
counties have impaneled a second grand jury in the last four years.
e
4.3 Professional Monitoring
Law enforcement associations and private, independent consultants offer monitoring
services to LEAs.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police offers
e
Page 5 of 14
Olllnge County GllInd Jury 2005-2006
"...comprehensive surveys of the management and operations of police agencies. The
surveys aim to determine the degree to which a department is properly accountable, is
operating cost-effectively, complies with professional police standards, and satisfies the
crime control and service requirements of the citizens it serves."
The Los Ang$s County Board of Supervisors employs a Special Counsel who has wide
powers of investigation to provide an independent review of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department. Semi-annual reports provide visibility and accountability of
department management with the goal to evolve policies and procedures to a level of best
practices. The experience and reputation of the Special Counsel in Los Angeles County
includes participation in the Christopher Commission investigation of the Los Angeles
Police Department and the Kolt's Report which established the monitoring of the Los
Angeles County Sheriffs Department.
Many independent consultants provide a plethora of services available to LEAs for
monitoring including: processes review, data analysis, risk management, management
strategies, discover patterns of conduct, staffing, training, etc.
Some Orange County LEAs currently utilize, or have utilized, independent consultants to
study specific functions and/or processes and one LEA utilizes a private company to
continuously update policy.
4.4 Law Enforcement Standards
Most Orange County LEAs are members of and certified by the Commission on Peace
Officers' Standards and Training (POST). Established by the California Legislature, POST
provides the minimum standards tor seiectIon and trammg ior iaw eniorcement oibcers.
The LEAs must provide personnel information to POST about officers, including dates of
hire, promotions, disciplinary actions, assignments and training and POST conducts a,
compliance review of this data.
Two LEAs are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA), an independent accrediting authority established in 1979 by four
major law enforcement membership associations: Intemational Association of Chiefs of
Police, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Agencies, National Sheriffs'
Association, and Police Executive Research Forum. Community policing is an element of
the standards and according to the CALM, by involving the community and meeting
these standards, the number and severity of events have-been shown'l;o decrease
significantly.
4.5 Southern CalifornIa Oversight of LEAs
Major Southern California counties and cities have some form of LEA citizen oversight as
a consequence of highly criticized events. The following table shows the type of
oversight and reporting relationship:
Page 6 of 14
e
e
e
Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
e
l~~' . ~: ,~-,~,.....~~.~,"~: \~'\,.:;c:-"~:~ ('" ~I' 1"/ i ~~)',":,,;' '.: cl;'V,V, 7,~ _' ~ :- , I '~' -.~ :.-";
\ 'l lJ \'.~ 1 i~J\.I)':., l,!j, .~~t :.t_'-.r~ :i,'(\'~'~ ~r (.:- 111"I,:r ~(tJl (lj~'J.9131'J: 1..> .>" " . ~ "~:J 1~ll;' ~ 11:~ ~;\-j f t" lIi>-"-l:;J;- v
~\-.-, ~~. -<'__:-._~~l ,\\<'-:":'::.:.,'~!t_'J.~ ;~~, ~-:;'n);:h.:. ~~ -"~,"',,,,"L;'_~,,~_<q 'I',:, ~,'-,.:.~" ~ 'j :,._' :"".- ~.J_~#.i
City of Los Angeles . Investigative . Reports to Police
Commission Board
(appointed by the Mayor)
County of Los Angeles . Review (citizen) . LA Sheriff's Department
. Intemal review . LA Sheriff's Department
. Independent Consultant . Contracted by BOS
City of San otago . Review . Appointed by Mayor.
County of San otego . Investigative . A~ted by BOS
City of Long Beach . Review and Investigative . Appointed by Mayor/City
Council
e
4.6 PubliC/Private Sector Practices
Two management techniques used throughout the public and private sectors are
applicable to law enforcement agencies:
Self-Assessment Self-assessment provides a way to evaluate how well an organization's
activities support/comply with regulatory requirements, policies and procedures,
goals/objectives, plans, etc. The following are examples of the use of self-assessment:
. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency uses self-assessment to improve
voluntary compliance with federal trade regulations
. The American Public Works Association uses self-assessment to enhance
performance, increase productivity, and strengthen employee morale
. The Baldrige National Quality Program, under the auspices of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, uses self-assessment to support
performance excellence in business, education, and health care
. The Drucker Foundation uses self-assessment for nonprofit organizations to
support management planning
Best Practices: Documented collective wisdom for successful accomplishment, gained
from experience, benchmarking, and subject matter experts. The following are published
examples of best practices:
. "Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, purchase, and manage technology
(successfully)", Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
e
. "Best Practices of Compliant Companies", U.s. Customs and Border Protection
. "Current best practices: coping with major critical incidents.", the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, September 2004
Page 7 of :14
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
. "Domestic Violence: Best Practices for Law Enforcement Response", North
Carolina Governor's Crime Commission, January 1998
The National Center for Women & Policing Publication "Recruiting and Retaining
Women: A Sell-Assessment Guide for Law Enforcement" provides an example of the
combination of self-assessment and best practices.
e
5. Observations and Discussion
To understand LEA management structure, policies and procedures, oversight methods,
and extent of resident complaints, surveys were conducted by the Grand Jury using
letters addressed to Orange County city managers and during interviews with other city
leaders and participating LEAs. The following survey results indicate the total number of
complaints made to LEAs for the years 2003-2005 and the percentage of the complaints
that were sustained.
, " - - ,I' .:" +" r 't-~ j,qt'I_lc~'t~" :',- ".1.. l' ~ Il'li
~ ~H,; '_J,:-l."'L }1.i.1J!1..";,_~.)l."h:-,~.I'...:i't~'~..: ',_ ~"""- _ ~ I
1:,",,-_ 1 _. ~ _ _ ".." . > ~(I~-:'J."1J..1 \~~. . .1 "_" ~-'. lor. , . II;.!' _
ResIdent com hunts received
Internal com laints received
1,317
1,378
162
736
12.3%
53.4%
These numbers can be compared with resident complaints of other LEAs:
. Department of Justice 2000-2003 statistics indicate that 10.8% of 88,757 resident's _
complaints statewide were sustained ,.,
. City of Los An~les 2004-2005 statistics indicate that approximately 5% of 9,442
resident complaints were sustained
5.j. Current Monitoring Is Considered Adequate By Authorities
Survey results, public documents, and Grand Jury observations indicate that cities and
LEAs in Orange County consider current oversight to be adequate for the following
reasons:
, .
. Policies and procedures evolve within LEA review processes and by association
with organizations such as Orange County Chiefs' of Police and Sheriffs
Association, the CALEA, and POST. In addition, LEAs have outreach programs
to involve their respectiv!,! comm~ties, including advisory boards.
. Other oversight mechanisms exist such as the Orange County District Attorney,
State Attorney General, Federal Department of Justice, the grand jury complaint
system, Coroner's reviews, and independent consultant reviews.
. All LEAs have internal as well as resident's complaint procedures which provide
for investigation and subsequent notification of the results to the complainant.
. Cooperation between LEAs, based upon protocols, was evident when a "call out" _
for an officer-involved shooting was witnessed by the Grand Jury. Representatives ,.,
Page 8. of 14
OVersight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
e
of the involved city agency, the District Attorney's Bureau of ~vestigation, and
the OCSD worked together at the scene of the investigation.
o Cities with municipal police departments have a police chief appointed by the city
manager/administrator who, in turn, is appointed by the city council. In general,
oversight rests within this organization with the city council responsible to the
residents of that city.
o The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner is elected by the citizens of the county and
oversight is maintained within the OCSD; moreover, oversight is ultimately these
same citizens through the election process.
o In many cases, '.:omplainants have imreal expectab'bns that iheir coinplaint should
be sustained and definitive action taken and communicated.
e
5.2 Why Monitoring May Not Be Adequate
Orange County and city LEAs have demonstrated themselves to be models of propriety
by good governance and/or good fortune; few highly publicized and criticized police
events have occurred. Although history may not demonstrate an overwhelming need, the
following issues demonstrate that the best interests of Orange County residents could be
served with increased public oversight:
o The election of the Sheriff-Coroner and the process of appointing police chiefs by
elected city councils do not ensure that there is a proactive monitoring process at
work. Examples of possible weaknesses include: public and city council
interest/intervention limited; a lack of periodic reviews of LEA policies and
procedures; public and council membership without law enforcement experience;
the "chain of command" within LEAs: and, limited 1ines of communication
between LEAs and the public.
o Orange County demographics are beginning to take on the look of surrounding
counties where crime rates are signiliqlIlt1y higher. Examples of crime-related
trends within Orange County include: .
o The number of bookings in county-operated jails increased 10.4%
between 2001 and 2005 to 66,330 while average daily inmate population
increased 18.8%. At least one event of violence occurs daily during the
booking process and approximately 10% of these events result in an
injury.
o District Attorney investigations of LEA officer-involved shoetings,
custodial deaths and other officer-involved events increased from 18 in
2000 to 35 in 2005 after falling from a high of 59 in 1994.
o Although LEAs may continually work to improve policies and procedures, this
does not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best
e
.
Page 9 of 14
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
practices. One example of this is that Orange County law enforcement officers are
certified to "minimum" standards and training, may not be to a standard of best
practices.
. A long time is required for a more culturally diverse work force to wend its way
up the LEA management structure.
. The often publicized lack of visibility within LEAs seemingly exists because of the
"closed ranks" defensive attitude between officers and between LEAs and the
public.
5.3 Limitations of the Grand Jury Complaint System.
The ~ Justice commi~e of each grand jury is typically given the task of
considering resident complaints against LEAs. The Grand Jury reviewed several resident
complaints and found that there were significant limitations:
. A new grand jury is impaneled annually and requires several months for the
members to develop the understanding and skills necessary to perform this
specific responsibility
. The time to review complaints is negatively impacted as a result of:
. the time required to act as "public watchdogs" by becoming familiar with
county governance, determining issues that should be investigated, and
completing reports
. the 20%-30% of time required for criminal hearings
. Typically, there is limited law enforcement or legal experience on which to
evaluate law enforcement practices and processes
. There may be a lack of continuity between successive grand juries
. Reporting to the complainant is via a non-specific letter and the grand jury cannot
release decisions made to sustain or not sustain a complaint
5.4 Attributes of a Successful Citizen Oversight Mechanism
The Grand Jury determined that the following are key attributes of a successful oversight
mechanism:
. Independence from political institutions and influence and from LEAs to ensure
that a conflict of interest does not occur
. Use of best practice standards to measure: performance of officers, supervisors
and management; effective policies and procedures; and, compliance to policy and
procedures
. Provision for necessary resources for investigation and deh'beration
Page 10 of 14
.
e
e
e
e
e
e
Oversight of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencies
. Representation of the county's demographics of age, diversity, gender, culture an~
socio-economic status
. Flexibility to meet the needs of a fast growing, dynamic community of residents
and law enforcement
5.5 General Observations
Effectiveness .of citizen oversight investigative mechanisms (citizen oversight boards) is
debatable and Grand Jury review of several oversight mechanisms outside of Orange
County proved disappointing. In most cases the individuals selected for investigative
oversight were appointed by a political entity or work wili;Un a' political en~ty, thus
limiting their ability to act independently. An investigative oversight mechanism, in the
absence of pressure or a defined necessity, appears too cumbersome and costly for
adoption in Orange County at this time. One study indicated that investigative oversight
may reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement by inlubiting peace officers doing their
job.
Because internal investigations by LEAs support their actions in about 88% of resident
complaints, an appearance of bias is created.
Although the review process by grand juries should continue, for a variety of reasons, the
results are very limited.
Utilization of an outside consultant or special counsel to evaluate an LEA in its entirety
would provide an in-depth review of op~rations, resulting in recommendations for
improvement of policies and procedures. Such a review would also establish how well
the LEA is managed and is evolving into a best practices organization. As an evaluative
and performance-based oversight mechanism, this would meet the desirable goal of
oversight to establish accountability and visibility of an LEA.
6.
Findings
In accordance with California Penal Code ~933 and ~933.05, each finding will be
responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be
submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2005-2006 Orange County
Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings:
6.1 Best practices goal: Current practices for improving county and city law
enforcement agencies' (LEAs') policies and procedures may not ensure that these
policies and procedures are evolving to a level of best practices.
Page :1.1 of :1.4
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
11
6.2 Indqendent re11iews of LEAs: The use of independent reviews of LEAs' practices is
limited to unique reviews rather than to periodic reviews of policies, procedures,
and compliance.
e
.
6.3 Oranre County is changinr- Orange County and city LEAs will face new
challenges as the number of crimes increase, reflecting those of surrounding
counties.
6.4 LJ?A self-usessment: Using public/private sector management techniques such as
best practices, self-assessment, and independent audits would improve LEA
lIJ,Ollitoring.
6.5 Addrtissinl resident complaints: LEA and citizen oversight committees, including
the grand jury face significant limitations when considering and responding to
resident complaints about LEAs, including time constraints, inability to act
independently, and lack of law enforcement and/or legal experience for citizen and
grand jury committees.
Responses to Rndlngs 6..1 through 6.4 are requested from the 21 Orange
County municipal pollee departments and the Orange County Sherlff-Coroner.
R~ponses to Rndlngs 6.2 and 6.3 are required from the 34 Orange County city e
mayors.
iiesponses io rinding 0.:1 lire requireli trom ihe urengll County LiisirilOi Attorney
and the Orange County Sherlff-Coroner.
7. Recommendations
In accordance with California Penal Code !j933 and !j933.05, each recommendation will be
responded to by the g,?vemn;!ent entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be
, , '
- submitted to "the Presiding Ju'"dge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings, the 2005-
2006 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
7.1 Best practices guidelines: The Orange County municipal police deparbnents "
should consider adopting or developing best practice~ guidelines appropriate for
inclusion iD. LEAs' goals/objectives. An example would be the publication of a best
practice document as a self-assessment guide to handling residents' complaints.
(See Findings 6.1 and 6.4.)
-# 7.2
Near-term. indtrpendent reTJiew of LEA. policies, procedures, and comvliance: The
Orange County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange
County City Mayors, should consider contracting for a near-term independent
e
Page 12 of 14
OversIght of Orange County Law Enforcement Agencfes
review of LEAs' current policies, procedures, and compliance to provide current
status as compared to best practices. (See Findings 6.2 and 6.3.)
7.3 Periodic. independent revil!:Ws of LEA compliance to policiesanll procedures: The
Orange County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange
County City Mayors, should consider contracting for periodic, independent
reviews of LEAs' policies and procedures, using best practices guidelines as
criteria. (See Findings 6.2 and 6.3.)
7.4 Strengthen grand ;u7Jf: The Orange County Sheriff's Department and the District
Attorney should recommend specific training to each LEA and citizen oversight
committee, including grand juries, directed toward review of resideI'lt complaints
about LEAs. (See Finding 6.5.)
e
-
Responses to Recommendations 7.3. through 7.3 are requested from the 21.
Orange County munlclpel pollee departments and requIred from the Orange
County Sherlff-COroner.
Responses to Recommendations 7.2 and 7.3 ere required from the 34
Orange County city mayors.
Responses to Recommendation 7.4 are requIred from the Orange County
e District Attorney and the Orange County Sherlff-COroner.
e
8. Acknowledgement
The Orange County Peace Officers'
Memorial is "a tribute to a~ the
officers who serve the County of
Orange, and remembrance of those
who have made the ultimate
sacrifice." Fallen peace officers are'
commemorated at the memorial
located at the Plaza of Flags, Civic
Center, ~anta Ana. Currently there
are approximately 5,000 peace
officers committed to serve and
protect the residents of Orange
County. Annually, many officers are
commended for their actions and
bravery in the face of adverse
situations.
Memorial Ceremony, May 10, 2006
Page 13 of 14
Orange County Grand Jury 2005-2006
9. References
1. Survey of Orange County City Managers, 2005-2006 Orange County Grand Jury,
March 2006
2. "California Grand Jury Practices Surveys", California Grand Jury Association. 2001
and 2004
3. "Community Policing", Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies,
2006
4. "Establish Protocol for Officer Involved Shootings", Orange County Police Chiefs' and
Sheriff's Association, 1990
5. "Civilian, Oversight of the Police in the United States", Merrick Bobb, 2002
6. "Review of National Police Oversight Models for The Eugene Police Commission",
Police Assessment Resource Center, February, 2005
7. "Roster of US Civilian Oversight Agencies", International Association for Civilian
Oversight of Law Enforcement Agencies, September 2005
8. "Functions and Organization", Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners
9. "Citizen's Review Board on Police Practices", City of San Diego, Annual Report 2004
10. Citizen's Police Complaint Commission, City of Long Bea~
11. "Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board Rules and Regulations", County of San
Diego
12. "2005 Annual Reporf', Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board, County of San
Diego
13. "Police Accountability and Citizen Review-A Leadership Opportunity for Police
Chiefs", International Association of Chiefs of Police, November 2000
14. "Annual Complaint Report", Los Angeles Police Department, 2003, 2004, 2005
15. "Community Satisfaction Survey Summary", Tucson Citizen Police Advisory Board,
June, 2004 to January 2005
16. "Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department- 20'" Semiannual Reporf', Special Counsel
Merrick J. Bobb &. Staff and Police Assessment Resource Center, August 2005
r' .. .'- .
17. "A Review of the 'Use of Porce' Policies and Practices in the Detention Facilities of the
Orange County Sheriffs Department", W. Raymond Nelson, Criminal Justice
Consultant, Denver, Colorado, July 16, 2001
18. "Policy Governing Citizen Complaints Against Law Enforcement", California
Department of Justice, Office of the District Attorney
19. Section 832.5 and Part 2, Title 4, Grand Jury Proceedings, California Penal Code
Page M of 14
'\',
e
e
e
e
e
e
-5"-
August14,2006
Nancy Wieben-Stock, Presiding Judge
Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Center Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Judge Wieben-Stock:
The City of Seal Beach received the Orange County Grand Jury report, "Oversight of Orange County
Law Enforcement Agencies, Resolving B Dichotomy". Based upon the requests detailed in the report,
the following responses have been compiled to Findings 6.2 and 6.3 as well as Recommendations 7.2
and 7,3.
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS:
6.2 Independent reviews of LEAs: The use of independent reviews of LEAs' practices is limited to
unique reviews rather than to periodic reviews of policies, procedures, and compliance.
We disagree. The policies and practices of the Seal Beach Police Department are under regular scrutiny
and review by State and Federal Judicial Systems, the City Manager and City Council, the City Attorney's
Office, and Police Department Management Staff.
Police Department practices are continually subject to the scrutiny of independent reviews by the
communities they serve. Beyond complaining to the law enforcement agency itself, community members
have a variety of options to seek redress if they believe they have been treated unfairly, that the police
have acted unlawfully, or that the police are not performing competently,
Community members have access to their elected officials and those officials have the ability to intercede
if they believe the Department is operating in an unfair, unscrupulous, or unlawful way. Our City Council
has significant powers to oversee and change police practices in our local jurisdiction, The Police Chief,
is an "at will" employee who serves at the discretion of the City Manager and this relationship mandates
that the City Manager take seriously and respond to Council actions and concerns.
Law enforcement agencies are subject to investigation and intervention by a number of state and federal
agencies, Complaints of improper or unlawful actions may at a minimum draw the attention of the state
or federal Departments of Justice, the FBI, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, These
state and federal agencies have substantial power and authority to change local police practices as
evidenced through Consent Decrees implemented in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and other Cities
across this country.
Through open records acts, police departments are subject to oversight by the media, privately funded
interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, and independent community members. All police
department policies and procedures, with the exception of tactical procedures, are available to the public
GRA!'lD JURY MAYOR'. RESPONSE - Citlzen's Oversight Board SUlVey 8-7-06
e
e
e
for review. The media has the ability to bring concerns to the public's ettention and private groups have
the ability and funds to bring civil actions seeking change.
Finally, individual community members who believe they have been aggrieved may access the court
system, or they may seek the assistance of the District Attorney or Grand Jury who have subpoena and
investigatory powers.
Each of these review systems is in place and works effectively. The courts, elected officials, other
govemmental agencies, private interest groups and the community all have a vested interest in their local
police agencies and together they conduct periodic external reviews of police department policies,
procedures, and compliance.
6.3 Orange County Is changing. Orange County end city LEAs will face new challenges es the number
of crimes increase, reflecting those of surrounding counties.
We agree. The County is changing and growing. As a result, the City believes that law enforcement
agencies will face new challenges as the County grows and crime increases.
However, there is no evidence that communities within Orange County will face the amount or type of
criminal activity that has affected our surrounding counties. Certainly challenges will occur as our law
enforcement departments and their communities work together to maintain low crime rates, but the efforts
that our departments have made toward prevention, partnerships and problem-solving will form the
foundation for safe and secure communities for years to come.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
7.2 Near-term, Independent review of LEA policies, procedures, and compliance: The Orange
County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange County City Mayors, should
consider contrecting for a near-term independent review of LEAs' current policies, procedures, end
compliance to provide current status as compared to best practices, (See Findings 6.2 and 6,3.)
This recommendation will not be implemented because it is our belief that it is not warranted at this time,
The City does not support the expenditure of funds for near-term independent review. Such reviews have
been conducted by the Courts, as well as through checks and balances inherent in municipal
government, i.e., through the City Manager's Office and the City Attorney. The internal and external
systems of checks and balances in place are functioning effectively and there Is no evidence to suggest
that the recommendations proposed by the Orange County Grand Jury would enhance the systems in
place.
7.3 Periodic, Independent reviews of LEA compliance to policies and procedures: This
recommendation will not be implemented for the same reasons stated in Recommendation 7.2
We appreciate the time spent on examining these issues even though we may not be in agreement with
all of the Orange County Grand Jury's conclusions and recommendations.
Sincerely,
John Larson
MAYOR, CITY OF SEAL BEACH
GRAND JURY MAYOR's RESPONSE - Cltizen's Ovel1lighl Board Survey 8-7-06
Nancy Wieben.Stock. Presiding Judge
Orange County Superior Court
700 Civic Cenler Drive West
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Co -,-
~y
August 14, 2006
Dear Judge Wieben-StoCk:
My office received the Orange County Grand Jury report, "Oversight of Orange County Law
Enforcement Agencies, Resolving a Dichotomy". Based upon the requests detailed in the report, I
have compiled responses to Findings 6.1 through 6.4 as well as Recommendations 7.1 through 7.3,
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS:
e
6.1 Best practices goal: CUf19nt practices for improving county and city law enforcement agencies'
(LEAs1 policies and procedures may not ensure that these policies and procedures are evolving to a level
of best practices.
We disagree. The Seal Beach Police Department has adopted the principles in sample policies drafted
and approved by the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriffs Association after appropriate legal review, the
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), as well as those recommended by other
professional organizations. We believe those policies and related procedures rise to the level of best
practices.
The Grand Jury refers to adopting "best practices' as a guide for local police departments in developing
their policies and procedures. Unfortunately, no such guide currently exists that would provide
meaningful information on inlemal affairs practices in the State of California, or in policing across the
country. However, with the assistance of a federal COPPS Office grant, subject matter experts from
across the nation and representatives of the twelve largest law enforcement agencies in the country have
been drawn together to develop a system of best practices for accepting, investigating, and resolving
community member complaints of police misconduct The Seal Beach Police Department supports such
an effort and is open to the review, consideration and implementation of best practices as they are
developed.
6.2 Independent reviews of LEAs: The use of independent raviews of LEAs' practices is limited to
unique reviews rether than to periodiC raviews of policies, procedures, and compliance.
e
We disagree. The policies and practices of the Seal Beach Police Department are under regular scrutiny
and review by the State and Federal Judicial Systems, the City Manager and City Council, the City
Attorney's Office, elong with our own Police Legal Advisor and other Management Staff.
Police department practices are continually subject to the scrutiny of independent reviews by the
communities that they serve. Beyond complaining to the law enforcement agency itself, community
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report
Page 2
members have a variety of options to seek redress if they believe they have been treated unfairly, that the _
police have acted unlawfully, or that the police are not performing competently. ,.,
Community members have access to their elected officials and those officials have the ability to intercede
if they believe we are operating in an unfair, unscrupulous, or unlawful way. Our City Council has
significant powers to oversee and change police practices in our local jurisdiction. I, as a police chief, am
an "at will" employee who serves at the discretion of the City Manager and the City Council and this
relationship mandates that I take seriously and respond to Council actions and concerns.
Law enforcement agencies are subject to investigation and intervention by a number of state and federal
agencies. Complaints of improper or unlawful actions may at a minimum draw the attention of the state
or federal Departments of Justice, the FBI, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These
state and federal agencies have substantial power and authority to change local police practices as
evidenced through Consent Decrees implemented in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and other cities
across this country.
Through open records acts, police departments are subject to oversight by the media, privately funded
interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, and independent community members, All police
department policies and procedures, with the exception of tactical procedures, are available to the public
for review. The media has the ability to bring concerns to the public's attention and private groups have
the ability and funds to bring civil actions seeking change.
Finally, individual community members who believe they have been aggrieved may access the court
system, or they may seek the assistance of the District Attorney or Grand Jury who have subpoena and
investigatory powers.
Each of these review systems is in place and works effectively. The courts, elected offiCials, other _
govemmental agencies, private interest groups and the community all have a vested interest in their local ,.,
police agencies and together they conduct periodic external reviews of police department policies,
procedures, and compliance.
6.3 Orange County Is changing: Orange County and city LEAs will face new challenges as the number
of crimes incraase, reflecting those of surrounding counties.
We agree. The County is changing and growing. As a result, we believe that law enforcement agencies
will face new challenges as the County grows and crime increases.
However, there Is no evidence that communities within Orange County will face the amount or type of
criminal activity that has affected our surrounding counties. Certainly challenges will occur as our law
enforcement departments and their communities work together to maintain low crime rates, but the efforts
that our departments have made toward prevention, partnerships and problem-solving will form the
foundation for safe and secure communities for years to come.
6.4 LEA seff-assessment: Using publiclprivate sactor management techniques such as best practices,
seff-assessment, and independent audits would improve LEA monitotjng.
We disagree partially. Many law enforcement organizations in Orange County engage in ongoing self-
assessment to ensure that their organizations are achieving their missions in accordance With their
values. Further, many departments have contracted with independent firms to conduct periodic reviews
on intemal systems evidencing that the recommendations of the Orange County Grand Jury are already
In place through sound management practices, rather than through an external unfunded mandate. Our
department does this too.
With regard to LEA monitoring, we already have sufficient procedures in place, along with both internal -
and extemal review, to insure we are following best practices. As a result, we do not agree that ,.,
GRAND JURY COP's RESPONSE - Cftizen's Oversight Board Survey 8-7-06
e
e
e
Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report
Page 3
Independent audits (at public expense), would provide sufficient levels of improvement in this area to
warrant the additional expenditures required. Our Policymakers (City Manager and City Council), have
the authority to call for such audits when they are not satisfied with the Department's performance in the
Community. With effective policies, checks, and balances already in place, the financial impact involved
does not relate to the necessity.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS:
7.1 Best pl8ctlces guidelines: The Orange County municipal police departments should consider
adopting or developing best practices guidelines appropriate for inclusion in LEAs' goals/objectives. An
example would be the publication of a best practice document as a self-assessment gUide to handling
residents' complaints. (See Findings 6.1 and 6.4.)
Refer to 6.1 Best Practices Goal for a discussion on best practices.
We have already implemented this recommendation. The Seal Beach Police Department receives
regular recommendations from Legal Advisors from law enforcement professional organizations, State
agencies like POST, County of Orange Chiefs and Sheriff's Association, etc., on a variety of topics, such
as oversight and training in the handling of residents' complaints to the police department. In conjunction
with our own City Attomey, we adopt those best practices and recommendations on model polices. We
are open to considering the value contained in a publication of Best Practice Guidelines by an
organization like POST, or the IACP as a self-assessment to the handling of any law enforcement issue
7.2 Near-term, Independent review of LEA policies, procedures, and compliance: The Orange
County municipal police departments, in cooperation with the Orange County City Mayors, should
consider contracting for a near-term Independent review of LEAs' current policies, procedures, and
compliance to provide current status as compared to best practices. (See Findings 6.2 and 6.3,)
This recommendation will not be implemented because it is the Seal Beach Police Departmenfs belief
that it is not warranted at this time. We do not support the expenditure of funds for near-term
independent review. Such reviews have been conducted by the Courts, as well as through checks and
balances Inherent in municipal govemment, i.e., through the City Manager's Office and the City Attorney
The internal and extemal systems of checks and balances in place are functioning effectively and there is
no evidence to suggest that the recommendations proposed by the Orange County Grand Jury would
enhance the systems in place.
7.3 Periodic, Independent reviews of LEA compliance to policies and procedures: This
recommendation will not be implemented for the same reasons stated in Recommendation 7.2
We appreciate the lime spent on examining these issues even though we may not be in agreement with
all of the Orange County Grand Jury's conclusions and recommendations.
~.
........... - .i$
CHIEF OF POLICE
GRAND JURY COP'll RESPONSE - Cftizen'. Oversight Board Survey B-7-06
- '1-
e
California Penal Code S~ctions ~933 and ~933.0S
[Note: to reduce grand jury requests for additional response
information, the grand jury hal!' "bolded" those words in S933.05 which
should be appropriately included .in ~ response]
e
S933. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the
superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations
that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or
calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be
submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time
during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be
submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or
departments, including the county board of supervisors, when
applicable, upon finding of the pre~iding judge that the report is in
compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term,
the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable
notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report.
(b) One copy of. each final report, together with the responses
thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on
file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of
the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the
report and the responses tQ the State Archivist who shall retain that
report and all responses in perpetuity.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final
report on the operations of any public agency subject to its
reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall
comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings
and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the
governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1
shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior
court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on
the findings and recommendations pertaining'to matters under the
control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls.
In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings
and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall
forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court
who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury
reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency
and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and
shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall be placed on
file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the
control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years.
(d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department.
e
S933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to
each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall
indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding,
in which case the response shali specify the portion of the finding
that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons
<f'
I." ....
.....
therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each
grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall
report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary'
regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe f9r implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an
explanation and the scope ana parameters of an analysis or study, and
a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the
officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when
applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date
of publication of the grand jury' report.
(4) The recommendat~on will not be implemented because it is not
warranted 0; is not reasonable, with a~ explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury
addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or
department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if
requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of
supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters
over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the
findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or
department.
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come
before the grand jury for the "purpose of reading and discuss~ng the
findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or
entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their
release. .
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the
subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the
court, either on its, own determination or upon request of the
foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of
the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or
entity two working days prior to its public release and after the
approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the
report prior to the public release of the final report.
e
e
e
.:c