California Dept of Justice Biennial Report 2008
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Biennial Report
Major Activities
2007-2008
California
Department of Justice
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Attorney General
An electronic version of this report is available on the California Attorney General’s website at www.ag.ca.gov
September 15, 2008
Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
I am pleased to submit to you the Biennial Report on the major activities of the Attorney
General’s Office, as required by Government Code section 12522.
This report covers calendar year 2007 and the first six months of 2008. The contents
illustrate the significant cases and accomplishments of the California Department of Justice
(DOJ), including its divisions of Law Enforcement, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Public Rights,
Justice Information Services, and Administrative Support, as well as Executive programs.
DOJ’s commitment to safeguarding California’s human, natural and financial resources
are highlighted, along with examples of our overall dedication to ensure justice, safety and
liberty for citizens of the state through the fair and impartial enforcement of California’s laws.
Sincerely,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
Biennial Report
Major Activities
2007-2008
California
Department of Justice
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Attorney General
An electronic version of this report is available on the California Attorney General’s website at www.ag.ca.gov
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...................................................................................... 1
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 9
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Bureau of Forensic Services ................................................................................... 11
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement ............................................................................ 13
Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence ............................................................... 14
Bureau of Gambling Control ................................................................................... 16
Bureau of Firearms ................................................................................................... 17
Western States Information Network ..................................................................... 18
PUBLIC RIGHTS DIVISION
Environment Law Section........................................................................................ 21
Natural Resources Law Section ............................................................................. 24
Consumer Law Section ............................................................................................ 27
Antitrust Law Section .............................................................................................. 29
Civil Rights Enforcement Section ........................................................................... 30
Corporate Fraud Section ......................................................................................... 31
Indian and Gaming Law Section ............................................................................. 33
Land Law Section ..................................................................................................... 33
Tobacco Litigation and Enforcement Section ...................................................... 35
Charitable Trusts Section ........................................................................................ 36
DIVISION OF CIVIL LAW
Business and Tax Section ...................................................................................... 39
Correctional Law Section ........................................................................................ 40
Employment, Regulation and Administration Section ......................................... 41
Government Law Section ........................................................................................ 42
Health, Education and Welfare Section .................................................................. 44
Health Quality Enforcement Section ..................................................................... 46
Licensing Section ..................................................................................................... 47
Tort and Condemnation Section ............................................................................ 48
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL LAW
Appeals, Writs and Trials Section .......................................................................... 51
Correctional Writs and Appeals Section ............................................................... 56
Special Crimes Unit .................................................................................................. 57
Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse .......................................................... 58
Crime and Violence Prevention Center .................................................................. 59
Office of Native American Affairs ........................................................................... 61
Office of Victim Services ......................................................................................... 61
Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program .................................................................. 62
Table of Contents, continued
DIVISION OF CALIFORNIA JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES
Application Development Bureau ........................................................................... 63
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information................................................ 63
Bureau of Criminal Information Analysis............................................................... 64
Infrastructure Support Bureau ................................................................................ 65
Departmental Services Bureau ............................................................................... 65
Computer Operations Bureau ................................................................................. 66
Operations Support Branch .................................................................................... 66
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
Fiscal Programs ........................................................................................................ 67
Office of Departmental Services ............................................................................. 68
Personnel Programs Section .................................................................................. 69
Office of Professional Development ....................................................................... 71
Legal Support Operations Branch .......................................................................... 72
Information Support Services ................................................................................. 72
Management Analysis and Policy Development ................................................... 74
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
Office of Communications ....................................................................................... 75
Special Assistant Attorneys General ..................................................................... 76
Office of Legislative Affairs ..................................................................................... 76
Office of Program Review and Audits .................................................................... 77
Equal Employment Rights and Resolution Office ................................................ 77
Solicitor General ....................................................................................................... 78
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
STAFF
EXECUTIVE
James Humes
Chief Deputy
Attorney General
Matt Rodriquez
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Public Rights Division
David Chaney
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Civil Law Division
;1
,
.:.
.
Dane Gillette
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Law Division
'
,
.
"C-'
II .....
.,.I
'. ~....
'
~
. .
George Anderson, Director
Division of Law Enforcement
'J'1,11jyj1
i
- ~,!{~i~
1
I
I
I
'
fJ
·~~
.-- t - ,_
,
•
.
Sue Johnsrud, Director
Division of Administrative Support
Gary Cooper, Director
Division of Criminal Justice
Information Services
ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
As chief law officer of California, the Attorney General
is responsible for ensuring that state laws are
uniformly and adequately enforced. The Attorney
General carries out this constitutional responsibility
through the programs of the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General’s specific charges are
threefold: to provide legal representation, to support
common law enforcement, and to protect consumers
and the environment.
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Attorney General represents the People of
California before trial, appellate and supreme courts
of California and the United States in criminal and
civil matters; serves as legal counsel to state
officers, boards, commissions and departments;
and assists district attorneys in the administration of
justice.
To support California’s local law enforcement
community, the Attorney General coordinates
statewide narcotics enforcement efforts,
participates in criminal investigations, and
provides identification and information services
and telecommunication support.
In addition, the Attorney General establishes and
operates projects and programs that protect
Californians from fraudulent, unfair and illegal
activities that victimize consumers or threaten
public safety, and enforces the laws that
safeguard the environment and natural resources.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIGHLIGHTS OF 2007 AND 2008
This report represents a compendium of major issues, significant cases
and improvements in the operations of one of California’s most complex
and far-reaching state agencies.
The first two years of the administration of Attorney General Edmund G.
Brown Jr. brought new priorities to the California Department of Justice.
Particular consideration was given to important public issues such as the
reduction of carbon emissions and global warming and protection of the
environment. Attorney General Brown emphasized the fight against crime,
gang violence and drugs while advancing other issues affecting the lives
of Californians, such as fighting corporate fraud and protecting workers’
rights.
FIGHTING AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING
The Attorney General is leading the effort to attack the serious problem of
global warming.
Mileage Standards. California led a group of states in
successfully suing the federal government leading to a
landmark decision in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In this 2008 case, the light-truck mileage
standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) were challenged. The states
insisted that NHTSA evaluate the global warming impact
of its proposed new standards as part of its environmental
review. All new mileage standards will now need to
consider and evaluate their impacts on global warming.
(California v. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.)
Auto Emissions. The Attorney General filed two lawsuits in federal court
challenging the U.S. EPA’s unreasonable delay in ruling on California’s
waiver request to implement its own greenhouse gas auto emissions
standards. (California v. U.S. EPA.)
Carbon Dioxide and Clean Air. The Attorney General filed multiple
petitions with the U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act. The federal agency
has refused to control greenhouse gases even though carbon dioxide and
greenhouse gases are considered pollutants.
1
2
Offset Refinery Emissions. The Attorney General reached agreement
with ConocoPhillips to offset emissions from its refinery in the Bay Area.
ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its refinery would have resulted in an
increase of carbon dioxide emissions by 1.25 million metric tons per year.
PRESERVING CALIFORNIA’S RESOURCES
The Attorney General not only protects California’s environment, but also
its natural resources, including fish and wildlife, water, parks, timberland,
agricultural resources and environmentally sensitive lands.
Mining Site Clean Up. Asarco, a mining, smelting and refining company,
filed the largest environmental bankruptcy proceeding in the nation’s
history. The case involved contamination and environmental liability at
over 90 sites. The Attorney General reached a $34 million settlement for
remediation of environmental problems at the site of the former lead
smelter located on the Carquinez Strait in Contra Costa County.
(In re Asarco.)
Restriction of Colorado River Water. A Colorado River quantification
settlement agreement was reached with the State of Arizona. This
agreement reflects a historic effort by California to reduce its water usage
from the Colorado River by meeting its allocation requirement imposed by
the U.S. Supreme Court. (Arizona v. California.)
Sand Royalties. Sand-dredging companies deprived the state of millions
of dollars by failing to pay royalties and by illegally removing sand from
Suisun Bay. After extensive litigation and negotiation, the trial court
approved a settlement that required these companies to pay
$42.2 million. (People of the State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer v.
Hanson Building Materials, Inc.)
STANDING UP FOR CONSUMERS
The Attorney General protects Californians and businesses by enforcing
consumer protection and fair competition laws. Through these efforts,
millions of dollars are recovered each year on behalf of consumers.
Mortgage Deception. The Attorney General sued Countrywide Financial
Corporation and affiliates for mortgage fraud. Borrowers who obtained
certain types of home loans experienced dramatic increases in monthly
payments without regard to whether they could afford them.
The allegations claim that Countrywide pushed its borrowers
to serially refinance. Countrywide’s deceptive practices
contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of home loan
defaults and foreclosures. The complaint filed in June 2008
seeks restitution, civil penalties and an injunction barring the company’s
successor, Bank of America, from continuing these practices. (People v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation.)
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Summary
Deceptive Drug Advertising. California and 30 other states filed final
judgments against pharmaceutical company Merck for its deceptive
promotion of Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor drug. Among other restrictions,
the judgment prohibited deceptive direct-to-consumer advertising and
deceptive use of scientific data when marketing to doctors. Merck was
ordered to pay $59.5 million to the states. (People v. Merck & Company.)
Collusive Delays of Generic Drugs. The Attorney General filed several
lawsuits challenging improper agreements between pharmaceutical
manufacturers to delay the launching of generic equivalent drugs. One
such lawsuit was settled in 2008 for substantial penalties and injunctive
relief. (In re Ovcon Oral Contraceptives.)
Lead in Jewelry. The Attorney General sued major retail chains for
selling costume jewelry that contained lead and failing to provide a
warning, a violation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986. The California Legislature subsequently passed
a law that incorporated the lead reduction standards into statute, making
them binding on any company selling jewelry in California. (People v.
Burlington Coat Factory.)
Lead in Toys. In 2007, several companies were forced to recall millions
of toys that were imported from China and sold in California. The toys
exceeded California’s Proposition 65 lead level warnings and, in many
instances, the federal Consumer Product standards. The Attorney
General sued 15 companies for selling toys that contained lead without
providing a warning, and is currently negotiating additional settlements.
In 2008, Congress passed new legislation tightening federal standards on
chemicals present in toys. As a result, the state can now rely on federal
law to provide additional restrictions on products sold in California.
(People v. Mattel.)
Insurance Fraud. Over $1.2 million was seized from an insurance
broker and restitution made to 420 California victims. The insurance
broker sold liability insurance for concerts, sporting events and other
large, public event venues, collecting over $2 million in insurance
premiums for fraudulent policies. The broker was convicted of 63 counts
of insurance fraud, theft and forgery, and was sentenced to state prison.
(People v. Hall.)
3
4
PROTECTING WORKERS
The Attorney General enforces California laws that require fair business
practices to protect its workers and to ensure a level playing field in which
all businesses adhere to the same rules.
Workers’ Pay. The Attorney General sued a drywall contractor for using
several different corporate shells to avoid its obligations to workers. The
contractor failed to provide overtime pay, rest breaks, workers’ compen
sation premium payments, and prevailing wages for public works projects.
(People v. Interwall.)
Workers’ Compensation Fraud. The Attorney General sued a
construction contractor for illegally creating a model in which rank-and-file
employees were portrayed as officers and shareholders in order to qualify
for an exemption from workers’ compensation laws. (People v.
PacifiStaff.)
Wage and Hour Violations. The Attorney General sued a contractor for
paying employees in cash and for failing to pay minimum wages, overtime
and Employment Development Department taxes. The contractor also
failed to provide workers with rest periods as required by law. The final
judgment included restitution, civil penalties and a permanent injunction.
(People v. Brinas.)
ADVANCING DNA TECHNOLOGY
The DOJ provides forensic sciences, forensic education, narcotics
investigations, criminal investigations, intelligence and training.
Elimination of DNA Data Bank Backlog. Proposition 69 required all
convicted felons to submit a DNA sample to the CAL-DNA Data Bank.
An executive order issued by the Governor also required all incarcerated
felons and parolees to submit DNA samples. This created a backlog of
295,000 DNA samples. The DOJ implemented an aggressive project that
eliminated this formidable backlog.
CAL-DNA Data Bank. By the end of 2008, the DOJ’s DNA database will
contain approximately 1.16 million offender profiles, making it the third
largest DNA database in the world.
DNA Partial Match Policy. A new DNA search policy will expand local
law enforcement’s ability to investigate leads in unsolved violent crimes
by revealing the identity of a close relative of a suspect.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Summary
CRACKING DOWN ON CRIME
General Fund Recoveries. In Fiscal Year 2007/2008, the Bureau of
Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse recovered $38 million for the state’s
General Fund.
The Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse was recognized by the
federal Health and Human Services Agency as the premier Medicaid
fraud control unit in the nation.
Gang Suppression Enforcement Teams. In response to California’s
escalating gang problems, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
established Gang Suppression Enforcement Teams (GSET) throughout
California. In 2007, GSET investigations resulted in the arrest of over 169
subjects, including several who are now serving life sentences.
Operation Summer-Sweep. In 2007, DOJ coordinated a major
enforcement operation targeting 1,000 of California’s most dangerous
people who illegally possessed firearms. Operation Summer-Sweep
resulted in 16 arrests, referral of 82 cases to local district attorney offices
for prosecution, and the seizure of 423 firearms, 32 of which were assault
weapons.
Black Liberation Army Suspects Arrested. DOJ assisted the
San Francisco Police Department in investigating a decades-old case
involving the conspiracy of the Black Liberation Army to kill law enforce
ment officers. As a result of this cooperative endeavor seven former
members of the Black Liberation Army were arrested and charged with
the 1971 murder of a San Francisco police sergeant and conspiracy to
commit murder of police officers. The investigation is ongoing and the
defendants are being criminally prosecuted.
Organized Crime. California's Medi-Cal program was defrauded of more
than $20 million as a result of the activities of an organized crime ring.
Consequently, through the efforts of the Attorney General, the kingpin in
the crime ring received a prison sentence of more than 18 years, the
longest sentence ever for a healthcare fraud conviction. (People v.
Saeed.)
Dog Mauling. In a notorious San Francisco dog-mauling case, a jury
convicted defendants of second-degree murder and involuntary
manslaughter for allowing their two large dogs to attack and kill a
neighbor. After a superior court judge reduced one defendant’s murder
conviction to manslaughter, the Attorney General successfully appealed
to the California Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the superior
court for reconsideration of the ruling. On remand, the superior court
reinstated the murder conviction. (People v. Knoller and Noel.)
5
6
Sentencing Reform. In a landmark case on sentencing, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down certain aspects of California’s determinate
sentencing law pertaining to judicial discretion to impose upper terms. In
response, the California Legislature quickly modified the law to permit
greater sentencing discretion by trial judges. (Cunningham v. California.)
Federal Court Review. The Criminal Law Division obtained a
unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the
standard of review of state court convictions on habeas corpus when
reviewed by federal courts. The court agreed with the Attorney General
that a prisoner may succeed on his habeas corpus petition only if he
shows that a constitutional error at his state trial had a “substantial and
injurious effect” on the outcome of his trial. (Fry v. Pliler.)
STREAMLINING THE DEPARTMENT
The biennial period was a time of reorganization to increase operational
and administrative efficiency. Attorney General Brown significantly
reduced the number of management positions and integrated a number of
programs. This allowed the DOJ to return to the General Fund
approximately $17 million in savings.
• Eliminated Positions. Approximately 250 positions were eliminated,
including five Special Assistant Attorney General positions and one of
two Chief Deputy positions. These reductions simplified the reporting
structure and increased efficiency.
• Consolidated Support Divisions. The Administrative Services
Division and the Division of Legal Support and Technology were
merged to create the Division of Administrative Support, thereby
placing all DOJ support functions in one reporting structure. State
processes and procedures were subsequently simplified and
consolidated.
• Merged Enforcement Divisions. The Division of Gambling Control
and the Division of Firearms were placed under the Division of Law
Enforcement, ensuring consistent management of all law enforcement
activities.
• Reorganized DOJ Sections and Bureaus. Similar work functions
were consolidated to strengthen the knowledge and expertise of staff
and to ensure consistent management:
-
A new Corporate Fraud Section in the Public Rights Division was
created by merging the Energy and Corporate Responsibility and
False Claims Sections;
-
The Division of Law Enforcement’s Bureau of Investigation and
the Criminal Intelligence Bureau were merged to form the new
Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence;
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Summary
-
The Division of California Justice Information Services’ Computer
Operations Bureau and Infrastructure Support Bureau were
combined to create the new Infrastructure Support Bureau.
-
The scope of the Criminal Law Division was expanded to include
prevention efforts and outreach programs. The Crime and
Violence Prevention Center, Office of Victim Services and Office
of Native American Affairs were redirected from Executive
Programs to the Criminal Law Division.
7
8
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attorney General
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Office of
Communications
Special Assistant
Attorneys General
Chief Deputy Attorney General
James M. Humes
Division Programs
Executive Programs
Division of Civil Law
Chief Assistant Attorney General
David Chaney
Solicitor General / Opinion Unit
Manuel Medeiros
Division of Criminal Law
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Dane Gillette
Equal Employment Rights
and Resolution Office
Director Laurie Pejuhesh
Public Rights Division
Chief Assistant Attorney General
Matt Rodriquez
Office of Program Review & Audits
Director
Andy Kraus
Division of Law Enforcement
Director
George Anderson
Office of Legislative Affairs
Director
Marc LeForestier
Division of California Justice
Information Services
Director Gary Cooper
Division of Administrative Support
Director
Sue Johnsrud
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Department Overview
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
The Attorney General’s responsibilities are fulfilled through the diverse
programs of the Department of Justice, which has over 5,000 employees,
six divisions, and an annual operating budget of over $800 million.
Authorized
Positions
2007-2008 Budget
1,632
$260,766,000
Public Rights Division
355
$ 74,081,000
Civil Law Division
617
$117,317,000
Criminal Law Division
679
$105,441,000
Calif. Justice Information Services (DCJIS)
1,394
$179,294,000
Division of Administrative Support
1,025
$ 84,608,000
130
$ 14,108,000
Division
Division of Law Enforcement (DLE)
Executive Programs
Total
5,832 positions
$835,615,000
Through its dedicated employees, the Department represents the people
in matters before the appellate and supreme courts of California and the
United States, serves as legal counsel to state agencies, coordinates
efforts to fight crime, provides identification and information services to
criminal justice agencies, and pursues projects designed to protect the
people of California from fraudulent, unfair and illegal activities.
Division Breakdown
Admin
Support
19%
DCJIS
23%
Law
Enforcement
28%
Criminal
Law
Civil
12%
Law
11%
Executive Programs
1%
Public Rights
6%
Major issues, significant cases, and improvements in the
Department’s operations are highlighted on the following pages.
9
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Law Enforcement
DIVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Division of Law Enforcement, through its 1,632 employees, provides
services in forensic sciences, forensic education, narcotics investigations,
intelligence and training. The division also ensures that the state’s
firearm laws are fairly administered and vigorously enforced, and
regulates legal gambling activities to ensure they are conducted honestly
and are free from criminal and corruptive elements. In addition, the
division provides a wide range of support services to law enforcement
agencies, and manages several of its own crime suppression programs
through the Bureau of Forensic Services, the Bureau of Narcotic
Enforcement and the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence.
The division is at the forefront of crime fighting and works with local law
enforcement agencies and state and federal agencies. The division’s
Western States Information Network coordinates information sharing with
California and other states.
The primary components of the Division of Law Enforcement include:
•
Forensic Services
•
Narcotic Enforcement
•
Investigation and Intelligence
•
Gambling Control
•
Firearms
•
Western States Information Network
Bureau of Forensic Services
The Bureau of Forensic Services provides forensic services to
state and local law enforcement, district attorneys and the
courts. The bureau is tasked with establishing and maintaining
the California convicted offender and forensic databases used
for criminal investigations. The bureau also maintains several
specialized programs including forensic toxicology, latent
prints, questioned documents and the DNA laboratories.
11
12
Through DOJ’s 11 regional forensic laboratories, including the state-ofthe-art DOJ Jan Bashinski DNA Laboratory in Richmond, forensic
services are provided to 46 counties in California.
BFS Casework Completed in 2007-2008
Forensic Analyses
Breath Tests
Blood/Urine Analyses
Controlled Substance Analyses
Toxicology Analyses
Biology Analyses
Latent Print Analyses
DNA Analyses
Criminalistics Cases, incl. 194 investigations
Firearms Analyses
Clandestine Labs
Questioned Document Analyses
Total
A "cold hit" refers to
an instance where a
DNA profile developed
from evidence in a
suspectless crime is
matched to an
offender in the DOJ
Data Bank.
Completed
141,691
47,640
32,177
29,758
20,768
2,728
2,471
1,980
1,688
1,325
290
226
282,742
Percentage
of Workload
50%
17%
11.3%
10.4%
7.5%
.9%
.9%
.7%
.6%
.5%
.1%
.1%
100%
Fast Track Forensics Program. The DOJ Jan Bashinski DNA
Laboratory now performs rapid analysis and database searches of DNA
profiles obtained from sexual assault evidence. Established in January
2007, the new Fast Track Forensics Program is a cooperative effort with
the DOJ, the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, the Los Angeles Police
and County Sheriff’s Departments and local police departments. In
addition to the standard samples collected in sexual assault evidence kits,
extra samples, such as swabs from other areas of the body, are collected
and sent directly to the DOJ DNA laboratory for immediate processing.
Within five days, the DNA profile is searched in the convicted offender
and forensic DNA databases, and police investigators are notified of a
“cold hit.” Since 2007, the DNA laboratory has identified 47 “cold hit”
cases.
CAL-DNA Data Bank Program. In 2007 and 2008, an estimated
460,000 offender DNA profiles were added to the CAL-DNA Data Bank as
mandated by Proposition 69. Proposition 69 requires DNA profiles on all
convicted felons and all registered sex and arson offenders, including
juveniles. It is estimated that by the end of 2008, the DOJ CAL-DNA
database will contain approximately 1.16 million offender profiles, making
it the third largest DNA database in the world. In preparation for the
significant increase in DNA samples each year, the laboratory was
expanded and a high-volume analysis system established.
CODIS provides
investigative
information to law
enforcement
officials in unsolved
cases.
DNA Partial Match Policy. There are many unsolved crimes when an
offender cannot be identified from the DNA profile obtained at the crime
scene. In 2008, the DNA Partial Match Reporting and Modified
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) search policy was developed to
provide law enforcement with investigative information in these unsolved
cases. If an offender’s DNA profile is close, but not an exact match to the
perpetrator’s profile, and there is a high likelihood of the match being
related to the actual perpetrator, detectives can now follow-up on the
investigative lead. In order to use this process and to ensure privacy,
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Law Enforcement
strict protocols are followed, including advanced DNA typing and review
of all pertinent information prior to releasing names to case investigators.
California Criminalistics Institute – Los Angeles. The California
Criminalistics Institute (CCI) is a nationally recognized provider of forensic
science training for scientists from the DOJ Bureau of Forensic Services
and California’s local government crime laboratories. In 2007, CCI
facilitated classes for 769 students. To meet increased demands for
training, CCI partnered with the California Forensic Science Institute and
the Los Angeles Regional Crime Laboratory to offer additional classes in
the Hertzberg-Davis Forensic Science Center in Los Angeles.
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
The Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement enforces state and federal controlled
substance laws through the investigation and apprehension of violent
criminals. The bureau handles complex problems associated with
arresting and prosecuting major drug dealers, violent career criminals,
clandestine drug manufacturers and prescription drug
violators.
Gang Suppression Enforcement Teams. In response to
California’s escalating gang violence, the bureau established
four Gang Suppression Enforcement Teams (GSET) through
out California. These teams provide leadership to local law
enforcement in suppressing multi-jurisdictional violent crimes
by using innovative investigative techniques to disrupt criminal
gang activities and dismantle their membership. The GSETs
are unique in that they target the leadership and organizational
structure of criminal street gangs, rather than foot soldiers that are easily
replaced. In 2007, GSET investigations resulted in the arrest of 169
subjects. Several subjects are serving life sentences.
Special Investigations Unit. In 2007, the Special Investigations Unit
was created to provide specialized investigative expertise to law
enforcement agencies statewide. The unit tracks and apprehends
suspects, and locates victims and at-risk citizens in high-priority
investigations. In 2007, the unit assisted in 73 investigations resulting in
59 felony arrests for crimes, including homicide, attempted homicide,
rape, robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.
Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System.
The Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System
(CURES) assists in the reduction of pharmaceutical drug diversion by
capturing specific controlled substance data from over 155,000
practitioners and 6,266 licensed pharmacies. CURES provides patient
activity reports to the medical community, investigative referrals to the
bureau’s regional offices, and specialized reports and statistical data to
researchers to identify drug trends. The program currently maintains
information on approximately 83 million controlled substances. In 2007,
35 million prescriptions were written and 53,232 patient activity report
requests were processed.
GSET provides
leadership to local
law enforcement to
disrupt criminal
gang activities
13
14
Diversion Program. The diversion program deters, prevents and
reduces drug diversion to illicit markets. DOJ Special Agents investigate
and assist in prosecuting licensed medical professionals and others who
are illicitly prescribing, dispensing or administering controlled substances,
as well as individuals who are printing, stealing, or forging fictitious
prescriptions. Agents also train the medical community to
identify schemes used to obtain controlled substances. In 2007,
investigations led to 61 arrests, and the seizure of 12,289 dosage
units of controlled substances or narcotics.
In 2007, CAMP eradicated
2.9 million marijuana plants, with
a street value of $11.6 billion.
Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. Funded by state and
federal agencies, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting
(CAMP) program is a multi-agency task force comprised of local,
state and federal agencies that assist counties in eradicating
illegal marijuana cultivation and trafficking. In 2007, CAMP
eradicated 2.9 million plants, with a street value of $11.6 billion.
CAMP conducted 472 raids, which resulted in 53 arrests, and the
seizure of 41 shotguns, handguns, assault rifles and other
firearms.
Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence
The DOJ’s Bureau of Investigation and Criminal Intelligence Bureau were
merged to form what is now the Bureau of Investigation and Intelligence.
The new bureau provides expert investigative and intelligence services to
the DOJ and allied law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
Sexual Predator Program. The Sexual Predator Program enforces state
and federal laws that pertain to registered sex offenders and sexual
predators. In 2007, the program made 1,118 arrests. Additional
enforcement activities included 500 undercover Internet operations, 1,300
parole and probation searches, and 7,000 contacts with registered sex
offenders to ensure compliance with state law and to update the
offenders’ status on the DOJ’s Megan’s Law website.
Suspect from Saudi Arabia Arrested. The Sacramento Valley Federal
Safe Streets Task Force was involved in a multi-country child exploitation
investigation whereby the suspect, identified as a psychiatrist from Saudi
Arabia, traveled from his homeland for the sole purpose of engaging in
sexual activities with a 2½-year-old child. The sting operation, conducted
by members of the Safe Streets Task Force and with the assistance of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Immigration, Customs and
Enforcement, arranged a meeting in California where the psychiatrist was
arrested. He was charged and convicted of federal crimes, including
travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in unlawful sexual
conduct with a minor and distribution of child pornography. He was
sentenced to seven years in federal prison.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Law Enforcement
15
Los Angeles County Regional Criminal Information
Clearinghouse (LA CLEAR). LA CLEAR is an information
management system that supports various narcotic and law
enforcement agencies. In 2007, LA CLEAR posted 61,000
critical events, an increase of 19 percent from the prior year.
Additionally, in 2007, the LA CLEAR Electronic Surveillance
Center supported 54 cases in which 700 electronic intercepts
were conducted, including 500 audio intercepts and 220 dialed
number recorder intercepts.
Investment Scam in Riverside County. After receiving a tip
from private investigators in Florida, DOJ Special Agents
investigated a suspect who was believed to be fraudulently collecting
investment money from unsuspecting victims who thought they were
investing in the development of a storage facility in Riverside County.
The suspect allegedly collected $330,000 from his “investors,” despite the
fact that he did not own the land, nor did he provide receipts or any
transaction records. DOJ agents captured recorded conversations in
which the suspect acknowledged taking possession of the money. The
suspect was arrested and charged with grand theft.
LA Clear Electronic
Surveillance Center
California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program (CAL WRAP).
Since 2007, the California Witness Relocation and Assistance Program
(CAL WRAP) assisted 1,700 witnesses and their family members. In one
CAL WRAP
case, the CAL WRAP provided assistance to the San Bernardino County
safely relocated
District Attorney’s Office to safely relocate a witness. The defendant in the 1,700 witnesses
case was upset that his girlfriend was sold a "lemon" vehicle and went on a
and family
members who
two-day shooting spree, killing three people and injuring three others.
needed
When police arrived at his apartment complex, the defendant resisted
protection in
arrest and shot at a police officer. The defendant was shot and sub
order to testify
sequently arrested. The defendant, who is also a gang member, made
at trial.
threats to kill anyone who testified against him. The district attorney’s office
used the relocation services of CAL WRAP to make it possible for the
witness to safely testify at trial. As a result of the testimony provided by the
protected witness, the defendant received three consecutive sentences ⎯
the death penalty, life without the possibility of parole, and 25-years-to-life.
Madera County Homicide Case Solved. In 1987, the body of a
prominent dairy farmer was discovered in a hay field in rural Madera
County. After exhausting all leads, the case was considered to be a coldcase homicide. In early 2000, the Unsolved Violent Crime Team
reopened the investigation, focusing on a dairy foreman as the suspect.
DOJ agents discovered that the victim’s wife masterminded the murder to
collect $880,000 from insurance companies and inherit an estate valued
at over $2 million. The wife died of natural causes before being brought
to justice. The victim’s son reported that the victim’s wife and the dairy
foreman plotted to murder his father, and he was present the night his
father was murdered. With this new information, an arrest warrant was
issued for the dairy foreman.
16
After all leads are
exhausted, local
law enforcement
agencies often seek
the assistance of DOJ
agents to solve “coldcase” homicides.
Unsolved Violent Crime Team. The Unsolved Violent Crime Team,
assisted by the Sexual Predator Apprehension Team and the
Investigative Support Team, worked with the Fresno County Sheriff’s
Department on a wiretap in the double-murder investigation of an elderly
couple who were killed in their home in 2005. There were no suspects in
these murders and investigators had exhausted all leads. The infor
mation derived from the wiretap led to the arrest of the victim’s son and
an accomplice, who were arrested and booked for the murder of both
victims.
Black Liberation Army Suspects Arrested. In 1971, armed with
shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic rifles and handguns, members of the
Black Liberation Army (BLA) attacked the San Francisco Police
Department (SFPD) Ingleside Police Station, killing Sergeant John Victor
Young. The BLA conspiracy to kill law enforcement officers began in
October 1968 and extended through 1973 with four attempted murders of
law enforcement personnel, the bombing of a police officer’s funeral at
St. Brendan’s Church in San Francisco, the murder of two New York City
police officers, the attempted bombing of Mission Police Station in
San Francisco, and three armed bank robberies. In 2000, the SFPD
reopened its investigation into the bombing of the Park Police Station and
requested investigative assistance from the DOJ. The DOJ’s Bureau of
Forensic Services was also assigned to identify a latent print collected
from the original crime scene. In 2007, seven former members of the
BLA were arrested and charged with the murder of Sergeant Young and
conspiracy to commit murder of police officers.
Environmental Crimes Team Uncovers Fraud. DOJ Special Agents
assigned to the Environmental Crimes Team investigated the owners of
Los Nachitos Recycling Center for fraud against the California
Redemption Value Fund. The suspects in this case were defrauding the
California Department of Conservation by transporting ineligible materials
from Nevada into California and then illegally submitting these materials
as recyclables for reimbursement. Agents conducted numerous
surveillance operations and served five search warrants during the course
of this investigation. As a result, DOJ agents uncovered over
$350,000 in fraud. Both suspects pled guilty.
Bureau of Gambling Control
The Bureau of Gambling Control investigates gambling license
applicant qualifications, monitors licensee conduct, and assists
Indian tribes to ensure that tribal gaming activities are crime-free.
Criminal Intelligence Unit. The unit issued 29 time-sensitive
intelligence bulletins to the law enforcement community,
stakeholders in the cardroom industry and Tribal casinos. These
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Law Enforcement
17
bulletins primarily focused on cheating scams, counterfeit $100 bills and
American Express gift checks, and were used by local law enforcement
agencies to develop probable cause in several arrests.
Investigations Completed in 2007-2008
Tribal Casino Key Employees
Tribal Casino Gaming Suppliers/Vendors (16 cases)
Cardrooms (8 cases)
Cardroom Work Permit Holders
Banking Service Providers (15 cases)
Total
Individuals
Investigated
1,274
115
188
119
104
1,800
Games Review Unit. The unit approved 609 new or modified games and
gaming activities. To help the public better understand the variety of
games offered, the Attorney General’s website provides information on
the rules and collection rates for approved games offered at 91 card
rooms currently operating in California.
Bureau of Firearms
The Bureau of Firearms ensures that the state’s firearms laws are
administered and enforced fairly and uniformly.
Implementation of the Armed and Prohibited Persons System
Database. In 2007, working with DOJ’s Division of California Justice
Information Services, the bureau implemented the Armed and Prohibited
Persons System (APPS) database. APPS is used by criminal justice
agencies and contains firearm registration information and data on those
who are prohibited from possessing a firearm as a result of felony
convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, being a danger to
themself or others, or an involuntarily commitment to a mental health
facility. It is estimated that over 70,000 armed people who are prohibited
from possessing a firearm reside in California.
Operation Summer-Sweep. In 2007, relying on information in the APPS
database, the bureau helped to coordinate a major enforcement operation
targeting 1,000 of California’s most dangerous and armed people who
illegally possess firearms. Operation Summer-Sweep resulted in 16
arrests, referral of 82 cases to local district attorney offices for prose
cution, and the seizure of 423 firearms, of which 32 were illegal assault
weapons.
Transfer of California Mental Health Records to the FBI National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index. In 2007,
the bureau electronically transferred over 200,000 mental health records
for inclusion in the federal NICS index, increasing the federal NICS index
database by 30 percent. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
states use the NICS index to determine the eligibility of a gun purchaser
to own or possess firearms.
DOJ’s APPS contains
information on firearm
registrations and on
people who are
prohibited from
possessing firearms.
DOJ agents targeted
1,000 of California’s
most dangerous
people who are
prohibited from
possessing firearms.
18
Western States Information Network
The Western States Information Network (WSIN) was established by
Congress as one of six regional information-sharing systems in the United
States. WSIN responds to the intelligence needs of over 1,200 law
enforcement agencies in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and
Washington. As of 2007, nearly 20,000 officers have used WSIN’s
services.
Deconfliction of Law Enforcement Operations. WSIN’s 24-hour
Watch Center electronically monitors law enforcement activities to detect
dangerous conflicts in operations by identifying multiple agencies that are
engaged in surveillance, service of search warrants, undercover activities,
arrests and probation/parole searches. In 2008, RISSafe, a deconfliction
software mapping program, will be available to law enforcement officers
nationwide. This first-of-its-kind system prevents operational conflicts
with multiple law enforcement agencies, ensuring officer safety. The
WSIN Watch Center serves as an after-hours fail-safe deconfliction
monitoring contact for the entire nation.
Hawaiian Smuggling Operation. In 2006, a Hawaii High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force that was comprised of the DEA, the
FBI and the Honolulu Police Department, investigated a major Mexican
organization that was shipping methamphetamine monthly from
Las Vegas to Hawaii. WSIN provided funds for drug purchases. The drug
purchases and information obtained from an FBI informant were sufficient
to warrant a federal wiretap. The investigation ultimately revealed that
drugs were being smuggled from Mexico and routed to the Hawaiian
Islands through Nevada. Twenty defendants currently face federal and
state charges of drug distribution. Over $250,000 was forfeited, and over
eight pounds of methamphetamine “ice” was seized.
WSIN’s criminal
intelligence database
contains 1.34 million
records on subjects,
vehicles, locations,
gangs, weapons and
phone numbers.
WSIN Criminal Intelligence Database. Regional Information Sharing
Systems (National Criminal Intelligence Database RISSIntel) is a criminal
intelligence database that contains records on criminal activity, including
narcotics, gangs and terrorism. This database has a seamless search
capacity with 14 intelligence databases and is governed by federal
regulations. Before subjects and businesses are added to the database,
there must be a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a criminal activity.
In 2007, WSIN member agencies made 640,500 database inquiries and
96,000 database submissions. The database contains information on
over 1.34 million subjects, vehicles, locations, gangs, and weapons.
Retired Probation Officer Slain. A retired probation officer and his wife
were brutally beaten, tied to a 66-pound anchor and thrown overboard
from their yacht to die. WSIN conducted a call record analysis of the
primary suspects’ telephones. Working closely with law enforcement,
WSIN analyzed over 20,000 call records and produced 28 charts
depicting calls placed between the suspects before, during and after the
crime. The DOJ’s supporting evidence helped convict the wife of one of
the suspects. She was convicted of two counts of murder with special
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Law Enforcement
19
circumstances involving financial gain and later sentenced in 2007 to two
life-terms in prison without the possibility of parole.
Corvallis Drug Trafficking Organization. After a two-year investigation
by more than 20 agencies, a Mexican drug-trafficking organization in
Corvallis, Oregon was dismantled in mid-2007. Corvallis City Police
Department, the lead agency, received $12,000 in funding from WSIN to
pay informant and drug-purchasing costs. WSIN also provided funding to
purchase 30 Nextel cell phones for the Oregon DOJ to coordinate
operations in five counties. The investigation resulted in the arrest of
19 defendants, issuance of 22 search warrants and seizure of firearms, a
residence, a business, cash, drugs and vehicles.
Suspect Linked from Cold File. In 2005, the Olympic Peninsula
Narcotics Enforcement Team (OPNET) Task Force was notified of a
marijuana-growing operation in their county. Since the primary suspect
had fled the county, the case was placed in a "cold" file in the WSIN
database. In 2007, while working on a major drug organization operating
in Washington State, the Seattle Drug Enforcement Administration
received a "hit" on the suspect, connecting him to a case submitted by
OPNET. Arrests were subsequently made, and the investigation resulted
in the seizure of property in Montana and several loads of drugs,
including marijuana, mushrooms and Ecstasy.
WSIN provides funds
and grants to law
enforcement agencies
to aid investigations.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
21
PUBLIC RIGHTS DIVISION
The Public Rights Division, through its 355 employees, serves
Californians by safeguarding the state’s environment and natural
resources, protecting state lands, maintaining competitive markets,
preventing fraudulent business practices, protecting consumers against
misleading advertising claims, preserving charitable assets and protecting
civil rights. The division is currently handling 2,815 legal cases.
The primary sections of the Public Rights Division include:
•
Environment Law
•
Natural Resources Law
•
Consumer Law
•
Antitrust Law
•
Civil Rights Enforcement
•
Corporate Fraud
•
Indian and Gaming Law
•
Land Law
•
Tobacco Litigation and Enforcement
•
Charitable Trusts
Environment Law Section
The Environment Law Section enforces state and federal environmental
laws affecting California's natural resources, its communities and public
health. The attorneys investigate and litigate matters concerning global
warming, hazardous waste, air and water pollution, and natural resources
conservation. The section both enforces and defends Proposition 65, the
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, which prohibits
contaminated or illegal discharge to sources of drinking water and
undisclosed exposures to toxins and carcinogens. The section also
represents the Department of Toxic Substances Control in its enforce
ment of federal and state hazardous waste control laws and the
“Superfund Law.”
The Attorney General has broad independent authority to bring environ
mental actions under the California Constitution, the Government Code
and case law. The section investigates and litigates both state and
federal cases.
The Superfund Law
was created to
protect people and
communities from
heavily contaminated toxic waste
sites.
22
Significant cases include the following:
California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). The Attorney General has identified global warming as the
single greatest environmental threat facing California. In a 2008 U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, California led a group of states in
successfully suing the federal government. Under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, NHTSA must determine national mileage standards for
cars and trucks. In this case, California and other states challenged
NHTSA’s new mileage standards. The states insisted that NHTSA
evaluate the global warming impact of its proposed new standards as part
of its environmental review. As the result of this decision, all new mileage
standards must consider and evaluate the impact on global warming.
Clean Air Act Petitions. In the landmark case of Massachusetts v. EPA,
the U.S. Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. Despite that ruling, the
U.S. EPA has failed to control greenhouse gases. As a result, the
Attorney General is seeking to force U.S. EPA to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions from numerous sources, including power plants, ocean
vessels, aircraft and off-road vehicles.
ConocoPhillips Refinery Expansion. In 2007, ConocoPhillips sought
approval from Contra Costa County to expand its refinery and increase its
hydrogen capacity. The county estimated that the expansion would
increase carbon dioxide emissions by 1.25 million metric tons per year.
The Attorney General raised concerns about the emissions in a comment
letter. As a result, in a first-in-the-nation settlement, the Attorney General
reached agreement with ConocoPhillips to offset greenhouse gas
emissions.
People v. Home Depot. Following a coordinated investigation with eight
district attorney offices and the Los Angeles City Attorney, the Attorney
General reached a $30 million settlement with Home Depot reforming
how the chain handles hazardous materials and waste. The case
revealed that Home Depot routinely combined incompatible waste,
disposed of waste improperly, poured waste down drains and failed to
follow basic waste-handling requirements. The settlement includes civil
penalties and costs, payment for training programs and over $10 million
for environmental projects at Home Depot stores.
People v. Pilot Travel Centers. Along with four district attorney offices,
the Attorney General reached agreement for a detailed injunction
addressing long-standing and pervasive violations of underground tank
laws. These violations included tampering with leak-detection sensors for
large gasoline tanks located at Pilots’ truck stops throughout the state.
The settlement included total liability of $7.5 million, with $4.4 million in
civil penalties, credit for supplemental environmental projects, fees, costs
and other actions.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
In re Asarco. Asarco, a mining, smelting and refining company, filed the
largest environmental bankruptcy proceeding in the nation’s history. The
case involves contamination and environmental liability at over 90 sites in
the United States. Representing the Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the Attorney General obtained a court-approved settlement
totaling $34 million for remediation of environmental problems at the
site of the former lead smelter located on the Carquinez Strait.
California v. U.S. Forest Service. Continuing years of efforts to
protect the state’s national forests, the decision in this lawsuit
required environmental review of the U.S. Forest Service’s 50-year
management plan for all aspects of the Sequoia National
Monument, including the removal of trees. In two other cases, a
nationwide injunction was obtained protecting wilderness areas in
national forests. A federal court struck down regulations that
severely limited public review of the Forest Service’s planning
decisions. (California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture; Citizens for
Better Forestry v. U.S. Department of Agriculture.)
People v. Burlington Coat Factory. The Attorney General sued major
retail chains for selling costume jewelry that contained lead and for failing
to provide a warning, a violation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking
Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. After the court approved a
consent judgment requiring the companies to reduce or eliminate lead in
costume jewelry, the California Legislature passed a law that incorporated
the lead-reduction standards into statute, making them binding on any
company selling jewelry in the state.
People v. Alpro Alimento Proteinicos. In this case, the Attorney
General settled with 37 companies that manufacture or distribute candy
containing lead. The candy is imported from Mexico and sold in
California. The settlement requires candy suppliers to meet stricter lead
standards, test their products, undergo inspections and audits of their
facilities, and pay penalties and the cost of enforcement and inspection.
People v. Mattel. In 2007, several companies were forced to recall
millions of toys imported from China and sold in California. The toys
exceeded California’s Proposition 65 lead-level warnings and, in many
instances, the federal Consumer Product standards. The Attorney
General sued 15 companies for selling toys that contained lead without
providing a warning. In 2008, Congress passed new legislation tightening
federal standards on chemicals present in toys. As a result, the state can
now rely on federal law to provide additional restrictions on products sold
in California.
Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Burlington Northern.
A developer of agricultural chemicals operating in the Central Valley
contaminated its site. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined
that Shell and Burlington Northern were jointly and severally liable for the
entire clean-up of the Superfund site. The decision is worth tens of millions
of dollars to the state. This case could potentially modify the joint and
Partial Clear-cut
Forest
23
24
several liability standard, a rule that currently governs and provides
litigation advantage to the government in most CERCLA cases.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Climate Change
Workshops. In 2008, the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Local
Government Commission, planned a series of regional workshops for
local government officials throughout the state. The workshops focus on
local government responses to greenhouse gas emissions and the
requirements of AB 32 and CEQA.
Natural Resources Law Section
The Natural Resources Law Section represents the majority of state
agencies responsible for natural resources management or pollution
control. The section's clients include the State Water Resources Control
Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the Department of
Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Science
Center, the Department of Conservation, the Air Resources Board and
the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention. The section also
represents the Department of Food and Agriculture and the 58 District
Agricultural Associations.
Significant cases include the following:
Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene. (Pavley Regulations.)
The Attorney General is defending the Air Resources Board in a lawsuit
filed by automakers and car dealers challenging California’s regulations to
reduce vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. In 2007, a federal judge
rejected the automakers’ challenge to California’s regulations, finding that
the regulations are not preempted by federal law. This victory for
California cleared the way for its regulations to become effective upon the
grant of a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act by the U.S. EPA.
The Attorney General
challenged the U.S.
EPA’s unreasonable
delay in ruling on the
state’s waiver request
to implement its
greenhouse gas auto
emissions standards
for model years
2009-2016.
State of California, by and through Governor Schwarzenegger, the
California Air Resources Board and the Attorney General v. U.S. EPA.
In 2007, the Attorney General filed two lawsuits in federal court challenging
the U.S. EPA’s unreasonable delay in ruling on the state’s waiver request to
implement its greenhouse gas auto emissions standards for model years
2009-2016. Fifteen states and 13 environmental groups intervened in
support of California in one or both of the cases. The U.S. EPA
Administrator announced he was denying the waiver request, and California
filed a challenge in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
State of California v. U.S. EPA. The Attorney General filed this case in
federal court on behalf of himself, the Governor, and the Air Resources
Board, challenging the U.S. EPA’s decision and accompanying legal opinion
not to regulate greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act. The
matter, which was consolidated with similar cases filed by other states and
environmental organizations, went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court
required the U.S. EPA to decide whether greenhouse gas emissions
contribute to “air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.” When the U.S. EPA delayed making such a
determination, the state petitioned the D.C. Circuit to enforce the Supreme
Court’s mandate. The case is pending before the D.C. Circuit.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
People of the State of California ex rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
Attorney General of California, the State Air Resources Board, and
the Placer County Air Pollution Control District v. Sierra Pacific
Industries, Inc. The Attorney General, on behalf of himself, the Air
Resources Board and Placer County, prosecuted an air pollution
enforcement case against a timber operations company, Sierra Pacific
Industries, California’s largest private landowner. The company agreed to
settle the civil complaint and undertake projects for a total of $12,985,000.
Fire Suppression Cost Recovery Actions. The Attorney General
represents the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention to recoup the
costs of fire suppression for the many wildland fires that occur in
California each year. Cases in 2007 through June 2008, included the
following:
Fire Suppression Cases
Fire
Forestry v. PG&E
Forestry v. Southern CA Edison
Forestry v. Jeralds
Forestry v. Kaiser Trucking, Inc.
CDF ex rel. People v. U.S.
Forestry v. Rosasco
Forestry v. Rupp
CDF v. Jay K., a minor
.
Forestry v. Fawnmeade
Forestry v. PG&E
Forestry v. Rankin
Forestry v. Southwest Cement Co.
Powerhouse Fire
Airport Fire
Stage Fire
West Fire
Camino Fire
Rosasco Fire
Bear Fire
Brandy Fire
Mountain Fire
Penn Fire
Rankin Fire
LeHigh Fire
Amount Recovered
$578,900
$492,500
$329,895
$315,000
$240,000
$160,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$ 96,318
$ 87,500
$ 86,000
Colorado River Board. The Attorney General
provides advice and counsel to the Colorado
River Board of California in its effort to protect
California’s rights to, and interests in, water in
the Colorado River System. Most recently, the
Attorney General’s efforts have concerned the
development of plans on the 2007 storage of
water for droughts.
Arizona v. California. A Colorado River quantification settlement
agreement was reached in a lawsuit with the State of Arizona. This
agreement reflects a historic effort by California to reduce its water usage
from the Colorado River by meeting its allocation requirement imposed by
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne; Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Association v. Gutierrez. The Attorney
General represents the Department of Water Resources (DWR), which
operates the State Water Project in cases filed under the federal
Endangered Species Act. The Act ensures that the coordinated
operations of the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water
Project protect the delta smelt and salmon, two endangered fish species.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the DWR have historically operated
and coordinated the federal and the state projects to divert water from the
South Delta for export throughout California. In the delta smelt case, the
Colorado River
25
26
court imposed specific limits on project pumping operations and ordered
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete a new biological opinion by
September 2008. In the salmon case, the court will hold a trial in 2008 on
the limits for protecting salmon.
People of the State of California ex rel. Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego Region v. Carlos Marin, Commissioner of
International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section.
(International Border Treatment Plant lawsuit.) In 2001, the Attorney
General, on behalf of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, sued a federal agency in federal court to enforce secondary
treatment requirements contained in a discharge permit issued to the
agency for sewage originating in Mexico. The sewage is treated at a
wastewater treatment plant in the United States and is discharged into the
Pacific Ocean in California’s waters. In 2004, the federal court issued a
compliance order under which the agency must implement secondary
treatment for these discharges. Compliance issues are ongoing.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Zone 7 v. Department of Water Resources. The Attorney General is
defending a suit filed by 14 water agencies in Northern California against
the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for breach of contract for
water supplied from the State Water Project to 29 water agencies
throughout California. The other contracting water agencies, all of which
are in Southern California, have joined the lawsuit to support DWR's
interpretation of the contracts. Trial is expected in late 2008.
ARCO v. State Water Resources Control Board and Lahontan
Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Leviathan Mine case.) The
Attorney General is defending a case brought by Atlantic Richfield
(ARCO) against the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
alleging that the regional board should be responsible for the U.S. EPAmandated investigation and cleanup of contamination at a state-owned
Superfund site. The parcel is the site of Leviathan Mine, a defunct sulfur
mine that was operated by a predecessor-in-interest to ARCO. Beyond
ARCO's claims, there is also potential liability for U.S. EPA's costs and for
natural resource damages.
Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Fish
and Game; United Steel Workers v. California Department of
Forestry. (Headwaters Litigation.) The Attorney General represents
several state agencies in defending their approval of environmental
documents for timber harvesting by Pacific Lumber Company in Northern
California. After the trial court ruled against the state agencies, the
California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. In 2008, the
Supreme Court found that the Department of Forestry did not approve a
sustained yield plan as required by the Forest Practice Act, and that the
Incidental Take Permit was inconsistent with the mitigation requirement of
the California Endangered Species Act. The court also found that the
agencies had complied with CEQA and that the Department of Fish and
Game had properly approved the Streambed Alteration Agreement.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
Consumer Law Section
The Consumer Law Section works to solve marketplace fraud in areas
such as:
•
•
•
•
Predatory lending, home
mortgage, refinance,
and foreclosures;
•
Sweepstakes;
•
Identify theft;
Living trusts, annuity
sales and fiduciary
abuses;
•
Household movers;
•
Credit repair, debt
collection and
consolidation;
•
Health fraud, nutrition,
prescription drug
advertising and health
care;
Travel agents and travel
industry;
Telecommunications,
including junk faxes and
unauthorized charges
on cell phones;
•
General advertising, retail
sales and warranties;
•
Automobile sales, leases
and repairs;
•
Immigration
consultants;
•
Vocational schools;
•
Privacy and e-commerce.
In these cases, the Attorney General seeks restitution to consumers, civil
penalties, and injunctive relief to halt the continuation of illegal activities.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. Countrywide Financial Corporation. In 2008,
the Attorney General filed a complaint against Countrywide
Financial Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President, and its lending affiliates. The complaint alleges
that Countrywide's loan officers and brokers misrepresented
or obfuscated the fact that borrowers who obtained certain
types of home loans, such as pay option adjustable rate
mortgages (ARMs) and other ARMs would experience dramatic increases
in monthly payments and that Countrywide made these loans without
regard for whether the borrowers could afford them. According to the
complaint, Countrywide also paid greater compensation to brokers for
loans with higher interest rates and prepayment penalties in order to sell
those loans for higher prices on the secondary market. Additionally,
Countrywide pushed its borrowers to refinance serially, repeatedly urging
borrowers to obtain new Countrywide home loans to pay off their current
loans. These deceptive business practices contributed to a dramatic
increase in defaults and foreclosures. The complaint seeks restitution,
civil penalties and an injunction barring defendants from continuing to
engage in these practices.
People v. Merck & Company. (Vioxx.) California and 30 other states
filed final judgments against Merck for its deceptive promotion of Vioxx, a
COX-2 inhibitor drug. Among other restrictions, the judgment prohibits
deceptive direct-to-consumer advertising and deceptive use of scientific
27
28
data when marketing to doctors. Merck was ordered to pay $59.5 million
to the states.
Family First Advanced
Estate Planning was
required to pay $5.5
million to consumers
who were victims of a
deceptive living trust
manipulation.
People v. Family First Advanced Estate Planning. This case involved
a living trust mill scheme, in which non-attorneys solicited seniors for
in-home visits to explain living trusts or to review their existing trusts. The
visits were used to give legal advice unlawfully in connection with selling
trusts and annuities. The judgment enjoined the continuation of these
illegal activities and required defendants to pay $5.5 million to consumers
who were charged surrender penalties, $1 million for civil penalties and
$700,000 to the state.
People v. AT&T Mobility. This case alleged that AT&T Mobility (formerly
Cingular Wireless) improperly charged customers for calls made after
their cell phone was lost or stolen. The final judgment stopped the
company from using an automatic billing practice. Under the judgment, if
a customer alleges that charges were unauthorized and incurred after
their phone was lost or stolen, the customer has the right to an
investigation and to submit corroboration that the calls were unauthorized.
Jackson Hewitt was
ordered to pay
$4 million in restitution
to certain taxpreparation customers.
Private vocational
schools were ordered
to stop offering
substandard programs
and false advertising
and were ordered to
pay $5.8 million in
restitution to students.
People v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. A judgment in this case resolved an
investigation into a variety of unlawful and unfair practices involving
Jackson Hewitt’s marketing of high-cost “refund anticipation loans”
(RALs) to its tax-preparation customers. The company’s advertisements
portrayed RALs as “refunds” instead of loans, and discouraged customers
from asking for direct tax refunds from the IRS for free. Further, the
company targeted its loans to the working poor – people eligible to
receive the “Earned Income Tax Credit” (EITC) – then charged those
same customers an extra $10 for a loan because they received the EITC.
Under the terms of the judgment, Jackson Hewitt, the nation’s secondlargest tax preparer, stopped its practices and paid $4 million in restitution
to customers who purchased RALs and “accelerated refund” products,
and $1 million in civil penalties and costs.
People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. and Titan Schools, Inc. Private
vocational schools, Bryman College, Everest College, and National
Institute of Technology, charged from $7,000 to $27,000 for several
courses that students financed by a combination of federal guaranteed
and private student loans. The Attorney General alleged that Corinthian
and Titan misrepresented the percentages of students who obtained
employment after completing courses offered by the schools, failed to
meet the minimum standards required under California law, and engaged
in false advertising and unfair competition. The final judgment required
Corinthian to stop offering 11 substandard programs and to stop making
misrepresentations, including the likelihood that students would find
employment and the amount of potential wages they would earn.
Corinthian and Titan provided $5.8 million in restitution, and paid
$700,000 to the state in civil penalty fees, expenses and costs.
People v. Walgreens. Walgreens failed to properly safeguard and
destroy the personal financial information of its consumers in violation of
California law. Walgreens had no written policies and no specific training
for its employees regarding safeguarding confidential customer
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
information. The Attorney General obtained a judgment under which
Walgreens will comply with state laws, implement adequate retention and
disposal policies, implement a training program, and designate a privacy
officer to ensure that their policies are properly implemented.
Antitrust Law Section
The Antitrust Law Section is responsible for civil and criminal enforcement
of California's antitrust laws and has authority to file civil actions under
federal antitrust law. The section works closely with other states and with
federal antitrust enforcement agencies to ensure that anti-competitive and
unfair business practices, such as price-fixing, are prevented and
stopped.
The section investigates potential antitrust violations, analyzes mergers
and acquisitions, litigates cases in both state and federal courts, and
prosecutes criminal cases.
Significant cases include the following:
United States v. Microsoft. In 2007, after five years of the California
Attorney General and the U.S. DOJ jointly monitoring the Microsoft
Corporation and its competitors, California and several other states
presented the court with an effectiveness report. In 2008, the states were
chosen to take the lead in monitoring Microsoft's compliance with the
consent decree for an additional two years to restore competition.
California v. Infineon. This California-led multi-state case concerns
price-fixing by manufacturers of computer memory chips. Several of the
companies, including major manufacturers with domestic headquarters in
Silicon Valley, pled guilty to price-fixing in federal court. In late 2007, two
settlements, totaling over $90 million, were filed. Litigation against the
remaining defendants is ongoing, and the case remains pending in the
federal court.
California v. Safeway. This federal lawsuit challenged a profit-sharing
agreement among the major supermarket chains in connection with a
major 2003-2004 Southern California strike and lockout of union
employees. In early 2008, an earlier ruling that the profit-sharing
agreement was not exempt from the antitrust laws by virtue of its
collective bargaining context was reaffirmed and reinforced by a new
judge. This matter is now on appeal.
In re Ovcon Oral Contraceptives. This is one of several lawsuits filed
by the Attorney General challenging agreements between pharmaceutical
manufacturers to delay the launching of generic equivalent drugs. This
multi-state litigation, brought in 2005 jointly with the Federal Trade
Commission, was settled against Warner Chilcott in 2007 and against
Barr Pharmaceuticals in 2008 for substantial civil penalties and injunctive
relief.
29
30
Civil Rights Enforcement Section
The Civil Rights Enforcement Section enforces civil rights on behalf of
state agencies and on behalf of the Attorney General in his independent
capacity. The section concentrates on matters in which there is a pattern
or practice of legal violations or where there is an important issue. The
section investigates and files civil actions and amicus briefs in state and
federal courts.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. County of Marin. In 2007, the Attorney General completed his
oversight of a settlement reached with the County of Marin to improve its
compliance with state disabled access regulations. The county
substantially improved its performance in this area and voluntarily
continued to implement the reforms mandated by the settlement.
~
VOTE
~
People v. County of Kern; People v. County of Santa Cruz.
In 2007, settlements in these two cases were reached to improve
physical access to polling sites for people with disabilities. These
cases were the first of this type ever filed by the Attorney General.
Both counties agreed to take measures to ensure that all polling
sites are accessible and agreed to a timetable to accomplish this
goal.
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown. The Attorney General vigorously
defended a state law that prohibited employers from using state funds to
support, oppose or deter union organizing of their employees. Although
the Attorney General obtained a favorable ruling from the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision was reversed. In 2008, the U.S.
Supreme Court concluded that the state law was preempted under the
National Labor Relations Act.
North Coast Women’s Medical Group v. Superior Court. In 2007, the
Attorney General filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in
support of a woman who was allegedly refused fertilization services by a
medical practice because she was an unmarried lesbian. The medical
practice asserted that its actions were protected by the constitutional right
to free exercise of religion. Our amicus brief argues that a religious
objection defense is unavailable in a state civil rights enforcement action
under the Unruh Act. A decision is pending.
People v. Home Improvement, Inc. In 2007, the Attorney General filed
an Unruh civil rights case and secured a settlement against a large
kitchen-remodeling contractor who refused to do business with certain
racial and ethnic minorities. The contractor was enjoined from discrim
inating in the future and required to conduct training and pay civil
penalties, attorney’s fees and costs.
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Mervyn’s Department
Stores. In 2007, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief in the
California Court of Appeal in this suit against Mervyn’s for its failure to
provide adequate aisle space between its movable clothing racks to
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
ensure that customers who use wheelchairs can access the merchandise.
The Attorney General argued that the state disability laws provide a more
comprehensive standard of liability than the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is pending.
Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art. The California Legislature
passed a law opening its courts to claims for the recovery of artwork
looted during the Holocaust currently held by art museums and galleries.
The Legislature revived and extended the state statute of limitations to file
such claims through December 31, 2010. A lower federal court ruled that
this law is unconstitutional because it violates the foreign affairs doctrine
which grants the federal government broad and exclusive powers over
foreign affairs. In 2008, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief
arguing that the state law is constitutional because it does not run afoul of
the foreign affairs doctrine.
Corporate Fraud Section
The Corporate Fraud Section was created by merging the Energy and
Corporate Responsibility Section and the False Claims Section. The
section investigates and prosecutes corporate fraud, underground
economy issues and other financial wrongdoing. The section may
prosecute cases jointly with the U.S. DOJ or with local governmental
agencies. Most false claims’ cases are initially filed by qui tams (whistle
blowers) who have inside knowledge about fraud against the government.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. American Fund Distributors. This securities fraud lawsuit
was brought against the distributor and investment advisor for the
American Funds family of mutual fund. The defendants failed to disclose
to investors their revenue-sharing agreements with brokers who were
selling shares of the fund, and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in
exchange for certain preferential marketing opportunities. The
defendants argued that our state enforcement action was preempted by
federal law. In early 2007, the California Court of Appeal, in a landmark
published decision, ruled that the Attorney General’s action was
permissible. The case settled after the defendants agreed to make the
required disclosures and to make other corporate governance reforms.
People v. Edward D. Jones and Co. This securities fraud action was
filed against a large, national securities broker-dealer doing business in
California that failed to disclose to investors its revenue-sharing
agreements with seven mutual fund entities. Hundreds of millions of
dollars were exchanged for providing preferential marketing opportunities,
such as inclusion on the firm’s “preferred” list of mutual funds. The
defendants argued that the case was preempted by federal law, but in
2007 the California Court of Appeal, in a published decision, ruled that the
Attorney General’s action was permissible. This case was settled in
September 2008. Jones paid $7.5 million in civil penalties, costs and
attorneys fees.
31
32
Department of Water Resources (DWR) v. Powerex Corp. In 2007,
the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review filed by
wholesale energy marketer Powerex. In doing so, the court rejected
Powerex’s argument that the DWR’s state contract formation action
alleging duress and undue influence over $1 billion worth of electricity
transactions during the California energy crisis was preempted by federal
law. The Supreme Court's ruling clears the way for this case to proceed.
State of California ex rel. Kevin Bartoo v. Hanson Aggregates MidPacific. A qui tam plaintiff sued Hanson Aggregates and its pre
decessors alleging that Hanson under-reported royalties owed to the
state for sand that it mined from submerged state lease sites in the
San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bay beginning in the early 1990's.
Hanson was also accused of over-mining its state lease sites, mining vast
amounts of sand from areas in the Suisun Bay where they did not have
leases, and filing false reports with various state agencies to hide their
illegal mining operations. In 2007, the Attorney General settled the case
for $42 million. An additional $6 million was paid by Hanson based on a
higher royalty rate while the litigation was ongoing.
State of California v. RMC. The Attorney General filed suit against
RMC, a large sand-mining operator, alleging that RMC under-reported
royalties owed to the state for sand it mined from submerged state lease
sites in the San Francisco Bay and Carquinez Straights. RMC was also
accused of over-mining on its state lease sites, mining sand from areas in
the Suisun Bay where they did not have leases, and filing false reports
with various state agencies to hide their illegal mining operations. In
2008, our office settled the case for $1.1 million.
People v. PacifiStaff, Inc. In 2007, the Attorney General filed a civil
complaint against PacifiStaff, alleging unfair competition for promoting a
business model that encouraged construction contractors to
portray rank-and-file employees as officers and shareholders in
order to qualify for an exemption from workers’ compensation.
PacifiStaff’s scheme promoted appointing sham officers and
issuing worthless shares. The settlement in this case included
a permanent injunction, civil penalties, costs and attorney fees.
People v. Brinas. This case involves numerous wage and hour
violations by a contractor, including failing to pay minimum wages,
overtime, and Employment Development Department taxes. The
contractor also failed to provide workers with rest periods as
required by law. A final judgment included a permanent injunction,
restitution, and civil penalties.
People v. Interwall. This case involves a drywall contractor who
underpaid its workers. The employer used several different
corporate shells in order to avoid its obligations to its workers by denying
overtime pay, rest breaks, workers’ compensation premium payments,
and prevailing wages for public works projects. The complaint was filed
alleging multiple violations of wage and hour laws, and the case is
pending.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
Indian and Gaming Law Section
The Indian and Gaming Law Section provides legal representation and
counsel to the Governor’s Office, the DOJ Bureau of Gambling Control,
the California Gambling Control Commission and other officers and
agencies of the state in litigation and transactional matters involving
issues of federal Indian law. Because issues of federal Indian law and
state gambling law intersect in matters of gaming by Indian tribes, the
section also provides counsel on a variety of matters in connection with
Indian gaming. The section also provides legal representation and advice
to the California Horse Racing Board and the State Lottery Commission.
Gaming Compacts. The Attorney General assisted the Governor in
negotiating new compacts and compact amendments with a number of
California’s federally recognized Indian tribes. These compacts enhance
environmental, consumer and employee safeguards to California’s
citizens in the expansion of the California Indian gaming industry, and
ensure that the state receives a fair share of revenues from tribal gaming.
Tribal Litigation. The Attorney General defends the state in cases
brought under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and gaming compacts
negotiated by the Governor. The Attorney General also represents state
court judges, state tax entities and others in cases contesting the exercise
of state authority over tribal matters.
Administrative Adjudication. The office represents the Bureau of
Gambling Control in administrative licensing matters to ensure that the
controlled gambling industry complies with applicable laws.
Land Law Section
The Land Law Section represents and advises the state in land use
litigation and in certain cases involving lands owned and administered by
the state for resource conservation or development. The section attorneys
are authorities on laws pertaining to land use and resource regulation,
real property, the public trust doctrine, oil and gas development and
administrative procedure. The agencies represented by the section
include the State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission,
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the
Resources Agency, and the state’s nine conservancies and agencies
implementing the CALFED Bay-Delta Program.
Significant cases include the following:
In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
Coordinated Proceedings. The Attorney General has long been
involved in efforts to address the severe resource problems facing the
Sacramento-San Joaquin-San Francisco Bay Delta. These efforts have
included defending the programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR),
prepared for the state and federal CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in
litigation before the California Supreme Court. CALFED was intended,
among other things, to provide for the restoration of the Delta ecosystem,
33
34
to improve Delta water quality and to increase the water supply. In 2008,
the California Supreme Court issued a decision upholding the PEIR.
"Takings Law" is based
on the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
that prohibits the
government from taking
property without just
compensation.
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States. The Attorney
General plays a significant role in developing “Takings Law” in both state
and federal matters. In Casitas, the plaintiff claimed that a biological
opinion which required water to be left instream to protect the endangered
Southern California steelhead amounted to a physical taking of its water
rights. On behalf of the State Water Resources Control Board, the
Attorney General filed amicus briefs in the federal trial and appellate
courts arguing that a restriction on water use cannot be deemed a
physical taking of a water right under California law. The case is pending.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Donald Winter, Secretary
of the Navy. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the
Navy to challenge the use of sonar in training exercises because it was
concerned about the effect of sonar on marine mammals. The lawsuit
alleges violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the federal
Endangered Species Act. Representing the California
Coastal Commission, the Attorney General also sued
the Navy for violating the CZMA and eventually
intervened in NRDC’s case. The federal court issued
an injunction that allowed the Navy to continue to use
sonar subject to conditions recommended by the
Coastal Commission. The injunction, with modif
ications, was affirmed by the federal Court of Appeals.
The Navy subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court. The petition was granted and oral argument is
scheduled for Fall 2008.
Feduniak v. California Coastal Commission. The Attorney General
represents the California Coastal Commission in cases that enforce the
Coastal Act of 1976. In Feduniak, the California Court of Appeal upheld
the Commission’s authority to enforce a permit condition requiring the
restoration of dune habitat. The Attorney General has also settled other
Coastal Act enforcement cases involving either violations of coastal
permit conditions or development without a permit which have resulted in
over $1 million in penalties and attorney fees.
The Attorney General
successfully challenged
a decision to designate
15,000 acres in the
Mojave Desert as
“urban and blighted”
for redevelopment
purposes.
Neilson v. City of California City. California law authorizes redevelop
ment agencies to designate and rehabilitate blighted areas. To finance
these activities, the agencies are allowed to capture increases in property
tax revenues from the redevelopment area. These revenues would
otherwise go to the state and to various local entities. In Neilson, the
Attorney General intervened in a suit to challenge a local agency decision
to designate 15,000 vacant acres in the Mojave Desert as "urban and
blighted" to benefit the Hyundai Motor Company. The city and its
redevelopment agency used the law to facilitate the construction of a test
track facility for Hyundai. The California Court of Appeal agreed with the
Attorney General’s argument that this property did not qualify for
redevelopment.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
35
Governor’s Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force. In 2007, the office
was asked to provide legal advice to the Governor’s Delta Vision Blue
Ribbon Task Force. The task force was established by the Governor to
develop a strategic plan for managing the resources of the Delta by Fall
2008.
Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The Attorney General recently
assumed responsibility for providing legal services to the Central Valley
Flood Protection Board (formerly called the Reclamation Board). In
recent legislation, this board was given expanded authority over flood
control measures along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and
their tributaries.
Tobacco Litigation and Enforcement Section
The Tobacco Litigation and Enforcement Section enforces California’s
interest under the nationwide Master Settlement Agreement (MSA).
Over the past ten years, tobacco companies have paid more than
$7.6 billion to California, its counties and four largest cities, under the
terms of the MSA. Not only does the MSA require the tobacco
companies to make annual settlement payments in perpetuity, but it also:
(1) bans the targeting of minors in the advertising and promoting of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco; (2) limits outdoor advertising, brandname sponsorships and brand-name merchandise; and (3) prohibits
companies from misrepresenting the facts about the health risks of
tobacco use. The MSA also bans conspiracies to prevent the
dissemination of information about the health hazards of tobacco use and
to suppress research into the effects of tobacco use on health and the
development of new, possibly safer, tobacco products.
In addition to enforcing the MSA, the section enforces laws regulating the
marketing and sale of tobacco products, such as the state law that
outlaws cigarette giveaways on property that is open to the general
public, laws restricting the sale of tobacco over the Internet, and financialresponsibility laws for cigarette manufacturers.
Significant cases include the following:
Sanders v. Brown. The Tobacco MSA was successfully defended in a
federal antitrust challenge. The plaintiff, filing on behalf of all smokers
who purchased cigarettes in California over the past four years, claimed
that the MSA created a massive price-fixing scheme that allows the
tobacco companies to charge ever higher prices without fear of compet
ition. In a significant victory, both the federal district court and the
appellate court resoundingly rejected these claims.
People v. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. In this action, U.S. Smokeless
was sued over several alleged MSA violations arising out of the
company’s Skoal brand name sponsorship of drag racing sanctioned by
the National Hot Rod Racing Association (NHRA). The company
sponsored events in which minors competed, sponsored more than one
series of races, and sponsored more than one entrant in the POWERAde
The Tobacco MSA
was successfully
defended by the
Attorney General
against claims that
it created a massive
price-fixing scheme.
36
racing series. In 2007, the NHRA changed its rules to bar drivers under
the age of 18 from competing in national events that are part of the
POWERAde racing series. The state and U.S. Smokeless reached a
settlement in which the company agreed to pay $1.5 million and to
sponsor only one race car beginning with the 2008 season.
The Attorney
General led multistate negotiations
to prevent youths
from accessing
tobacco products in
retail outlets.
Tobacco Retailing Agreement with Kroger. The Attorney General led
multi-state negotiations with Kroger, the nation's largest grocery chain,
regarding its retailing practices covering youth access to tobacco
products. In 2007, an agreement was reached between the company and
42 Attorneys General affecting 2,468 supermarkets in 31 states and 779
convenience stores in 15 states. Nearly 500 Kroger stores are operating
in California under the Ralph's, Food 4 Less, Foods Co. and Quik Stop
banners. The agreement requires Kroger to implement comprehensive
retailing practices to prevent youth access to tobacco products in its
stores and franchise outlets. This is the 11th such agreement produced
by an ongoing, multi-state enforcement effort. Previous agreements
cover all 7 Eleven, CVS, Walmart, Walgreens and Rite Aid stores, and all
gas stations and convenience stores operating under the Conoco,
Phillips 66, 76, Exxon, Mobil, BP, Amoco, ARCO and Chevron brand
names in the signing states. Including a separate litigation settlement
between our office and Safeway, these agreements cover over 80,000
retail outlets across the nation.
Charitable Trusts Section
The Charitable Trusts Section provides oversight of approximately 90,000
charities and 400 fundraising professionals. The section is responsible for
three principal functions: (1) identifying, registering, collecting and
maintaining public records for California charities and their fundraisers;
(2) prosecuting charity fiscal abuse, including fraud, diversion and
mismanagement; and, (3) reviewing sales of non-profit hospitals.
Millions of dollars for charities have been recovered through negotiated
settlements and civil judgments. More than 250 investigations and cases
are currently pending, involving self-dealing, illegal loans to directors,
excess compensation and other losses or threats to charitable assets.
During the biennial period, the section reviewed 150 transactions and
1,500 dissolution waivers, and responded to 12,000 requests for
information.
People v. Aaron Tonken. In this lawsuit, the Attorney General
recovered $2 million in donations from major Hollywood fundraising
events that had been illegally diverted to a charity that was used for the
defendants’ personal gain.
Estate of James Johnson. In this lawsuit, over $1 million was recovered
by the Attorney General and restored to the Johnson Charitable Trust,
after trustees and their advisors had diverted funds for their personal use.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Public Rights Division
Investigation of Noah's Wish. Noah’s Wish was formed to provide for
the needs of animals affected by natural and human-caused disasters.
Immediately after Hurricane Katrina, the organization issued press
releases seeking donations and leading donors to believe that their
donations would directly benefit animal victims. The Attorney General’s
audit revealed that approximately $8 million was raised, but only
$1.5 million was spent on hurricane relief. A settlement was entered
whereby Noah's Wish paid $4 million to the Greater New Orleans
Foundation for its intended purpose. The Attorney General imposed new
fiscal and governance controls and obtained an agreement prohibiting the
executive director from serving in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of any
California charity for five years.
Charitable Trusts Website. The Attorney General’s Charitable Trusts
website provides guidance regarding charitable laws and regulations,
information on making wise donation choices and information on cases
and settlements.
Registry Automation. The Registry of
Charitable Trusts is in its final phases of
implementing automated processes that
will enhance its ability to address
compliance issues, allow public access to
all documents filed with the registry, and
permit registrants to file documents and
pay registration and filing fees on-line.
37
A settlement with
Noah’s Wish resulted
in the transfer of
$4 million to aid
animal victims of
Hurricane Katrina.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
DIVISION OF CIVIL LAW
The Civil Law Division, through its 617 employees, is comprised of eight
sections. Most of the work of the division is non-discretionary, clientdirected and defensive. In addition to client work, the division represents
the Attorney General and the state in civil matters, including elections,
initiatives and referendums, along with prosecutorial or plaintiff-oriented
work. The division is presently handling over 18,286 cases.
The primary sections of the Civil Law Division include the following:
•
Business and Tax
•
Correctional Law
•
Employment, Regulation and Administration
•
Government Law
•
Health, Education and Welfare
•
Health Quality Enforcement
•
Licensing
•
Tort and Condemnation
Business and Tax Section
The Business and Tax Section protects the state’s treasury by defending
the validity of California’s tax structure. The section represents three
major state taxing agencies:
•
•
•
Franchise Tax Board (personal and corporate income taxes);
Employment Development Department (employment taxes);
Board of Equalization (sales and use taxes, and utility and
property taxes).
The section helps to protect citizens’ insurance, real estate and financial
interests, and the interests of members of the labor and business
communities by representing major business regulatory agencies and
their officials. Clients include the Insurance Commissioner, the
Commissioner of the Department of Financial Institutions, the Real Estate
Commissioner and the Industrial Welfare Commission. The section
appears in all levels of state and federal courts.
39
40
Significant cases include the following:
Small v. Superior Court. This class-action lawsuit involved construction
workers seeking unpaid overtime wages and other benefits. The Attorney
General intervened on behalf of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC)
to challenge a trial court ruling against the workers and to defend an IWC
wage order. The wage order required that construction, logging, drilling
and mining workers receive California’s wage and hour benefits. The
case involved millions of dollars in potential back wage claims for unpaid
overtime, meal periods, rest periods and other benefits. The California
Court of Appeal ruled that the IWC the wage order was invalid.
Northwest Energetic Services, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board;
Ventas Finance I, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board;
Bakersfield Mall, LLC v. Franchise Tax Board. These class-action
cases challenge a fee imposed upon limited-liability companies registered
in California, alleging that the fee discriminates against interstate
commerce and violates the U.S. Constitution. Potential claims for refunds
are estimated to exceed $1 billion.
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Poizner. This lawsuit defended the California
Insurance Commissioner’s order requiring Allstate Insurance Company to
reduce its California automobile insurance rates by approximately 17
percent, which will result in a savings of $200 million for California drivers.
The Attorney General successfully opposed Allstate’s request for a stay
of the Insurance Commissioner’s order. The denial of Allstate’s stay
request has resulted in a prompt reduction of its automobile insurance
premiums for California drivers. After our win on the stay motion, Allstate
dismissed its writ petition challenging the rate reduction order.
Equilon Enterprises v. State Board of Equalization. This action
successfully defended a claim by Shell Oil Company that the gasoline
industry bears a disproportionate share of the fees that support
California's childhood lead-poisoning prevention program. Potentially at
stake was over $200 million in fees and the very existence of the
program.
Correctional Law Section
The Correctional Law Section serves as litigation counsel for the
Governor, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the
Division of Juvenile Justice, and the Board of Parole Hearings, the
Department of Finance and the Department of Mental Health in civil
actions brought by state prisoners regarding prison conditions and certain
aspects of parole proceedings. Over 165,000 prisoners, 125,000
parolees, and 2,500 youthful offenders are under the jurisdiction of the
section’s client agencies.
The section is currently defending state officials in several thousand
individual lawsuits brought by prisoners. Successful defense of these
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
cases saves millions of taxpayer dollars in potential liability. The Attorney
General is defending 21 class-action lawsuits that include the following:
• Farrell v. Tilton. Challenges many policies and practices of the
CDCR, Division of Juvenile Justice.
• Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger. Questions the Board of Parole
Hearings and CDCR’s compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
• Coleman v. Schwarzenegger. Challenges system-wide mental
health care.
• Harrington-Wisely v. CDCR. Contests the use of sensitive x-ray
scanning devices on visitors at prisons.
• Plata v. Schwarzenegger. Challenges system-wide medical
practices.
• Morales v. Tilton. Opposes the lethal-injection procedures used
to carry out the death penalty.
• Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger. Challenges the parole revocation
procedures for adult offenders.
Employment, Regulation and Administration Section
The Employment, Regulation and Administration Section provides legal
representation to state agencies and state officials in court and
administrative proceedings involving personnel matters and claims of
employment discrimination, harassment and terms of employment. The
section also provides advice, training and outreach programs on a variety
of employment matters so that client agencies and their employees can
better detect, remedy and prevent discrimination and harassment in the
workplace. In addition, the section represents specific law enforcement
and regulatory state agencies in matters affecting public safety, such as
vehicle licensing, liquor licensing and attempts by criminal defendants to
obtain personal information of peace officers.
Significant cases include the following:
Green v. State of California. The Attorney General’s representation
before the California Supreme Court in this disability discrimination case
settled an important legal issue, providing that the employee ⎯ and not
the employer ⎯ has the burden of establishing that the employee can
perform the essential functions of the job.
Troppman v. Valverde. In this case, the California Supreme Court found
that the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) did not have to prove that a
person arrested for “driving under the influence” was caught in the act of
41
42
engaging in driving in order to suspend a person's driver's license for
refusing to submit to chemical testing after a lawful arrest, so long as
there was evidence demonstrating that he had been driving. The issue
divided appellate courts for over 20 years. This decision aids the DMV in
its mission to protect the public from drunk drivers.
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v.
Superior Court. This case addressed the delicate balance
between the right of the public to receive information about peace
officers, and the rights of peace officers to keep personal
information private. The Attorney General’s work before the
California Supreme Court resulted in a decision that provided
guidance to public employers when responding to requests from
the public.
Department of Motor Vehicles and People of State of
California v. Cars 4 Causes. In this action brought on behalf of
Californians, the Attorney General is seeking to enjoin unfair business
practices relating to the sales of unsmogged vehicles for export and false
advertising related to those sales. The Attorney General’s efforts will
protect consumers and ensure that such vehicles do not negatively
impact the environment.
Government Law Section
The Government Law Section represents the state’s constitutional
officers, including the Governor and the Attorney General, in civil
litigation. The section defends state statutes against constitutional
challenges, carries out the Attorney General’s role in preserving the
integrity of the electoral process through the preparation of titles and
summaries for proposed initiatives, serves as counsel to the State
Treasurer and various state agencies with regard to the issuance of
bonds, assists state agencies in handling contract and procurement
disputes, and advises clients on issues relating to public records, open
meeting laws and conflicts of interest.
Significant cases include the following:
In a landmark decision
in 2008, the California
Supreme Court held that
the Constitution
protects same-sex
couple’s right to marry.
In re Marriage Case. This landmark case decided the constitutionality of
the state’s law limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman. In
May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the laws limiting
marriage to the union of one man and one woman violated the funda
mental right to marriage safeguarded by the California Constitution. The
court held that the state's interests in maintaining the common and
traditional definition of marriage and in deferring to the ongoing legislative
efforts to protect same-sex couples through the domestic partner laws did
not constitute a compelling governmental interest. Separately, the court
also held that the marriage laws discriminated based on sexual
orientation.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
Bowen v. Election Systems & Software, Inc. On behalf of the
Secretary of State, the Attorney General sued a voting system vendor for
unauthorized changes to the AutoMARK A200 ballot-marking device.
The Secretary of State contends that the vendor made unauthorized
changes to its AutoMARK A200 and then sold those altered machines to
five California counties.
County of San Diego v. San Diego National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). This matter presented two
issues: (1) whether the state’s medical marijuana laws are in conflict with
the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and thus preempted under
the federal supremacy clause; and (2) whether the California Legislature
improperly amended Proposition 215 when it created the Medical
Marijuana Card Program (MMP). In a published opinion, the Court of
Appeal gave the counties limited standing to challenge only the statutory
provisions of the MMP that impose specific obligations on them. The
court held that the provisions that the counties could challenge do not
conflict with the CSA. The court further found that the challenged
provisions of the MMP did not amend Proposition 215 in violation of
section 10(c) because the MMP provides separate protections for
persons engaged in the medical marijuana programs.
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children v. Bowen. The central
issue in this case is whether the California Constitution and statutory
provision that prohibit felons on parole from voting, violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This case is pending in the California Court of Appeal.
Shaw v. John Chiang. This case challenges certain provisions of the
2007 Budget Act and related legislation. Plaintiffs assert that approx
imately $1.2 billion in sales and use taxes collected on vehicle fuel was
improperly appropriated: (1) to make current and reimburse past debt
service payments on various transportation bonds; and (2) to fund various
transportation programs. The trial court concluded that the $409 million
reimbursement to the General Fund from the Public Transportation
Account for past debt service payments was illegal and the remaining
$779 million in challenged appropriations was lawful. The case is
pending in the California Court of Appeal.
Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety v. Schwarzenegger. This
lawsuit alleges that the revenue-lease bonds authorized by the Public
Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 violate the
constitutional limit on state borrowing without voter approval. Plaintiffs
contend that the lease-revenue bonds constituted “debt” that would
require approval by a public vote. The trial court ruled in favor of the
state’s motion to dismiss the case. The case is pending in the California
Court of Appeal.
Video Software Dealers’ Association v. Schwarzenegger. The case
addresses whether a law making it unlawful to sell extremely violent video
games to minors under the age of 18 violates the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution. In 2007, a permanent injunction was issued prohibiting
43
44
enforcement of the law. This case is pending in the U.S. Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Health, Education and Welfare Section
The Health, Education and Welfare Section represents over 40 state
agencies in trials, writs, and administrative hearings, and appears in all
federal and state courts. A number of cases concern challenges to
statewide programs with fiscal impacts ranging from $100 million to
$1 billion. Issues include: free and low-cost medical care (Medi-Cal,
Healthy Families), statewide educational testing programs, welfare and
food stamps, mental health and services for persons with developmental
disabilities, public health programs, nursing home regulations, adoptions,
and child support enforcement.
Significant cases include the following:
Biomedical Patent v. Department of Health Care Services. This
patent-infringement case involves an assertion of sovereign immunity by
the California Department of Public Health (formerly the Department of
Health Services). The federal court dismissed the action in the state’s
favor, concluding that: (1) the department had not waived its sovereign
immunity by earlier intervening in a virtually identical case involving the
same parties; and (2) the state has not constructively waived its
sovereign immunity in all patent-infringement cases by virtue of invoking a
federal forum to protect its own patent rights. Following a lower court
affirmance from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Biomedical
Patent filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court has
invited the U.S. Solicitor General to offer an opinion on whether certiorari
should be granted.
Brothers v. Kern. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal
found that the right to counsel in a capital murder case was not violated
when remaining funds in a client trust account were withdrawn to pay
child support rather than to pay defense counsel. The court found that
the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect a criminal
defendant’s assets from a prior valid claim, especially an existing child
support obligation. The court also found that the trial court properly
ordered child support based on imputed interest income (as if defendant’s
funds had been invested), and had discretion to order the defendant to
post the funds as a security deposit to secure future support payments.
Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Services. This
lawsuit alleges that individuals with developmental disabilities are being
unnecessarily institutionalized in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the State Lanterman Act, the Medicaid Act and several constitutional
provisions. Plaintiffs seek changes to the developmental center system
that could potentially cost the state over $1 billion. The case is pending.
Independent Living Center v. Bonta. In this case, “dual eligible”
recipients under Medi-Cal and Medicare challenge the federal Medicare
Drug Prescription Modernization Act and seek to reinstitute California’s
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
previously expansive list of drugs covered by Medi-Cal. The new federal
drug program eliminated many drugs formerly authorized under Medi-Cal.
The case is pending.
Katie A. v. Bonta (Department of Health Care Services). This
statewide class action against the Departments of Health Care Services
and Social Services seeks to expand Medicaid-covered services under
the Early and Periodic Diagnosis, Screening and Treatment Program for
children in foster care − and those at imminent risk of foster care
placement − who have a mental illness or condition. Plaintiffs allege that
expansion of these services are required in order to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Medicaid Act, the Rehabilitation Act
and other constitutional and statutory provisions. The potential fiscal
liability to the state ranges from several hundred million dollars to over
$1 billion.
Coachella Valley Unified School District v. State. This case
challenges the California Standards Test and the California high
school exit exam, alleging that the testing system violates the
California Constitution’s educational guarantees, constitutes an
illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds and violates the federal
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The superior court entered
judgment in the state’s favor on the taxpayer and NCLB claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the court’s judgment regarding the NCLB
claims and the dismissal of the state and Governor. The appeal is
pending.
Valenzuela v. O’Connell; Chapman v. Department of
Education. Representing the Superintendent and the Department
of Education, the Attorney General successfully defended two
separate class action-styled lawsuits that sought to enjoin or
fundamentally alter the California high school exit exam.
Guillen v. Schwarzenegger. In this case, plaintiffs sought a cost-of
living increase, retroactive to October 2003, for all CalWORKs
beneficiaries due to changes in the vehicle license fee program. An
appellate court ruled on behalf of the state, saving it over $500 million.
Hydrick v. Davis. Sexually violent predators who are or were civilly
committed to Atascadero State Hospital brought a class-action lawsuit
alleging that their conditions of confinement violate constitutional
standards. Plaintiffs seek wide-ranging changes at the hospital and
monetary damages with potential liability of $10 to $50 million.
People ex rel. Brown v. PuriTec. This action was filed by the Attorney
General on behalf of California against a Nevada company that sold
water-treatment devices to California consumers over the Internet. The
company made substantiated performance- and benefit-related health
claims for uncertified water treatment devices on its website. The trial
court granted judgment for the state, imposed civil penalties against the
company and ordered the company to make changes to its website. The
California Court of Appeal held that California laws relied upon by the
45
46
state were consistent with unfair competition statutes relied upon by the
Dormant Commerce Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
Sexually Violent Predators Conditional Release Cases. Sexually
violent predators (SVPs) who are committed to state mental hospitals
may be conditionally released into the community as the final phase of
their treatment. The Attorney General assists the Department of Mental
Health and local courts on a number of SVP-release cases around the
state to ensure that the SVPs are properly and safely placed in local
communities.
Willmer v. Willmer. The Attorney General prevailed in a rare California
decision regarding enforcement of an international child support order, an
issue of increasing importance in family law. In a published California
decision, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) authorized enforcement of a foreign judg
ment for child or spousal support in California, and that Germany was a
“reciprocating state” for purposes of UIFSA by virtue of a declaration of
the Attorney General.
Health Quality Enforcement Section
The Health Quality Enforcement Section prosecutes disciplinary
proceedings against physicians who are licensed by the California
Medical Board and provides ongoing review of the board’s investigative
activities. It also prosecutes disciplinary cases for other allied health
boards. Additionally, the section seeks temporary restraining orders and
interim suspension orders when emergency relief is necessary to prevent
imminent harm to public health, safety and welfare.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. Bernard N. Bass, M.D. This case was one of many actions
brought to suspend or restrict the license of medical practioners during
the pendency of criminal charges. In this case, Dr. Bass was charged
with writing 406 prescriptions without a valid DEA license during a twomonth span. He surrendered his license to prescribe controlled
substances after Ventura County Sheriff's detectives searched his office
and home.
In the Matter of the Accusation Against Jeffrey R. Beck, D.O. This
action was brought to revoke the medical license of Dr. Beck whose
Maryland license had been suspended after he was caught on tape
during a nationally televised Dateline pedophile sting operation. After
being suspended by Maryland, Dr. Beck relocated to California where he
reactivated his medical license. After a four-day administrative hearing,
his California medical license was revoked.
In the Interim Order of Suspension Against Marcia McCulley, L.M.
This case was brought against McCulley, a licensed nurse-midwife,
based on numerous complaints from Simi Valley Hospital. McCulley
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
allegedly provided grossly substandard care, allowing several women to
nearly bleed to death during childbirth and causing one fetal death.
Licensing Section
The Licensing Section provides legal services to regulatory agencies that
were created to protect consumers from harm from over one million
licensed businesses and professionals operating in California.
The clients of the Licensing Section are responsible for the regulation of:
• Accountants
• Architects
• Electronic and
Appliance Repair
Persons
• Boxers
• Shorthand
Reporters
• Appraisers
• Trainers of Service
Dogs
• Geologists
• Cemetery and
Funeral Business
• Dentists
• Osteopathic Doctors
• Contractors
• Chiropractors
• Private Investigators
• Registered and
Vocational Nurses
• Martial Arts Fighters
and Promoters
• Behavioral Therapists
• Pest Exterminators
• Optometrists
• Automotive Mechanics
• Barbers and
Cosmetologists
• Smog Check
Technicians
• Pharmacists
• Landscape Architects
• Psychiatric Technicians
• Yacht and Ship Brokers
• Real Estate
• Pharmacies
• Veterinary Doctors
• Suppliers of Home
Furnishings
• Engineers
• Dental Hygienists
• Real Estate Appraisers
Significant cases include the following:
National Association of Optometrists and Opticians
(NAOO), LensCrafters v. Edmund G. Brown Jr. The
section is defending a constitutional challenge to the
California law that prohibits financial arrangements between
optometrists and opticians. In 2002, the optical industry
sued, alleging that the laws violate the Commerce Clause of
the U.S. Constitution because they only allow in-state
optometrists examinations in one location, but prevent out
of-state companies from offering the same service. The
case remains pending before the federal Court of Appeals.
People v. Cole National Corporation. In 2007, after six years of
litigation, this case settled. An order was issued enjoining Pearle Vision
from advertising optometrist services and resulted in a payment of
$2.5 million. The lawsuit was filed to stop Pearle Vision from controlling
optometrists’ prescriptions and to prevent it from running misleading eye
exam advertisements. The case established important law in 2006 when
the California Supreme Court held that California’s Health Maintenance
Organization (HMO) law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act
of 1975, does not create an exemption for HMO providers from
requirements imposed under California law.
Deputy Attorneys
General leave Ninth
Circuit Court after
oral argument in the
Lencrafters’ case.
47
48
California Department of Consumers Affairs Bureau of Automotive
Repairs v. EZ Lube, Inc. This case involved disciplinary action against
76 EZ Lube shops in Southern California for numerous violations of the
Automotive Repair Act. The violations included charging for unnecessary
parts and services, making false or misleading statements, and departing
from accepted trade standards. EZ Lube was found to have violated the
law and was ordered to reimburse the Department of Consumer Affairs
for hundreds of thousands of dollars in investigative costs.
Tort and Condemnation Section
The Tort and Condemnation Section defends the state, its agencies and
employees in civil actions for personal injury and property damage
brought in both state and federal courts. In addition, the section handles
litigation relating to the direct acquisition of property necessary for public
projects (eminent domain) as well as defending against claims that a
public project resulted in a taking or damage to private property (inverse
condemnation). The section also defends the state in mass tort and
inverse condemnation claims arising from natural disasters such as
California floods, earthquakes, dust and fire storms, and complex
construction litigation cases.
Significant cases include the following:
Department of Corporations v. Superior Court of San Diego County.
Forty-four plaintiffs sued the Department of Corporations alleging a loss
of $7.7 million because Corporations rescinded desist and refrain orders
against the issuers of securities. In a published opinion, the California
Court of Appeal held that Corporations has broad discretion with respect
to the issuance and termination of desist and refrain orders and that
private rights of action against Corporations is precluded in these
situations.
Terry Blankenbaker v. Janet Ingram. After six weeks of trial and 13
days of deliberation, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) regarding a 1997 auto accident caused by a
blinding dust storm near Barstow. The accident resulted in one death and
serious injuries. Plaintiffs contended that the CHP was aware of the dust
storm and failed to take timely protective measures. The case was
previously tried in 2004 with a jury awarding $4.7 million to plaintiffs. The
state Court of Appeal reversed the decision and ordered a new trial. The
jury in the second trial concluded that the CHP did not have notice of the
dust storm condition in time to warn or protect the motoring public.
Marck Vaught v. State of California. In this case, the “bunkhouse rule"
prevented plaintiff from recovering damages outside the limits of workers’
compensation benefits. Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for
injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. In this first
published Court of Appeal decision applying the bunkhouse rule in over 25
years, the court concluded that the phrase "arising out of" encompasses
injuries to an employee who is engaged in reasonable and expected use of
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Civil Law
the residence, even if the activity is purely personal. The court concluded
that "course of employment" is shown if the employment contemplates that
the employee resides in employer-furnished housing.
49
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL LAW
The Criminal Law Division, through its 679 employees, represents the
People of the State of California in criminal cases, as mandated both
constitutionally and statutorily. It coordinates and assists in the
investigation and prosecution of large-scale, multi-jurisdictional
investment frauds and business crimes, and investigates and prosecutes
healthcare fraud and elder abuse. The division is presently handling
17,310 legal cases.
The division provides statewide leadership in crime prevention, responds
to victims of crime and serves as a liaison to California’s 107 Native
American Tribes.
The primary sections and programs in the Criminal Law Division
include:
• Appeals, Writs and Trials Section
• Correctional Writs and Appeals Section
• Special Crimes Unit
• Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse
• Crime and Violence Prevention Center
• Office of Native American Affairs
• Office of Victim Services
• Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program
Appeals, Writs and Trials Section
The Appeals, Writs and Trials Section is the core unit that carries out
the Attorney General’s responsibilities in criminal cases. Section
duties include:
• Representing the People’s interest in all criminal appeals;
• Representing the People’s interests in state and federal
habeas corpus proceedings attacking criminal judgments;
• Handling criminal trials and investigations where local
prosecutors cannot proceed due to conflicts or recusal;
• Advising the Governor on extradition and clemency matters;
• Providing criminal law advice to local, state and federal law
enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, and state legislators;
51
52
• Enforcing the criminal provisions of the Political Reform Act of
1974;
• Conducting special prosecutions involving money laundering,
asset forfeiture, wiretap cases and organized crime.
Significant cases include the following:
Sirhan Bishara Sirhan v. George Galaza, Warden. Sirhan is
serving a life sentence for the 1968 murder of presidential candidate
Robert F. Kennedy and the attempted murder of five others. Sirhan is
now attempting to overturn his conviction through a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in federal court.
Michael Morales v. Robert Ayers, Jr., Warden. Morales was
convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 lying-in-wait murder of
17-year-old Terri W. in San Joaquin County. On the eve of
execution in 2006, issues arose as to the legality of the
lethal injection protocol and the execution was postponed.
The case remains pending in the federal court.
Mitchell Sims v. Jill Brown, Warden. Sims was convicted
in 1987 for the murder of John Harrigan, a Domino's Pizza
employee. In the penalty phase of the trial, the prosecution
presented evidence that Sims, a former Domino's
employee, had murdered two company employees in South
Carolina a week before the California murder. Sims’
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was
denied in 2006 and the case is awaiting the outcome of the lethal
injection litigation.
People v. Kevin Black; People v. Aida Sandoval. In early 2007, the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Cunnningham v. California called
into question thousands of criminal sentences by ruling that
California's system for selecting upper prison terms violated the right
to jury trial under the U.S. Constitution. Later that year, the California
Supreme Court decided Black and Sandoval, adopting the Attorney
General’s Cunningham interpretations. The court held that a trial court
may impose an upper term so long as one fact complies with the
requirement of the right to a jury. The Supreme Court further agreed
that the proper remedy for any case with prejudicial Cunningham error
is for the resentencing court to exercise its broad discretion, without
the requirement of judicial fact-finding.
People v. Kathleen Culhane. Defense investigator Culhane fraud
ulently drafted and signed numerous declarations to undermine the
capital verdicts and sentences of convicted killers on death row. After
an extensive statewide investigation, the Attorney General filed felony
charges against Culhane. In 2007, she pled guilty to four felony
charges and was sentenced to five years in state prison.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
People v. Dennis Nelson. In 1976, the body of a 19-year-old female
was found in a ditch. Seminal fluid was recovered from her body, but
no suspect was arrested. Eighteen years later, the DNA sample
recovered from the victim was run through the DOJ DNA database
and matched Nelson. Nelson was charged and convicted of rape and
murder. On appeal, Nelson challenged the reliability of the DNA
database methods. In Spring 2008, the Attorney General argued to
sustain the conviction before the California Supreme Court. The
decision remains pending.
People v. Eric Leonard. In 1991, Leonard executed two people
during a robbery of a convenience store. The following week, he
executed three more people during the robbery of a pizza parlor. The
killings appeared to be gratuitous, and he was dubbed by the local
press as the infamous "Thrill Killer." After he was convicted by a
Sacramento jury, Leonard appealed. In 2007, the California Supreme
Court upheld the conviction.
In re Dwayne McKinney. In 1980, McKinney allegedly shot and killed
a Burger King manager during a strong-armed robbery. Several
eyewitnesses identified McKinney, and a jury convicted him of murder.
While serving a life term, a fellow inmate who was housed next to
McKinney claimed that McKinney was innocent. Despite the fact that
the inmate's story was inconsistent and that two eyewitnesses
remained certain that McKinney was the killer, McKinney was released
from prison in 2002. McKinney then filed a claim with the state,
demanding that the state pay him approximately $1 million under a
statute that provides compensation for those who did not commit the
crime for which they were convicted. Our office opposed McKinney's
claim in a contested hearing. The Victims’ Compensation and
Government Claims Board agreed with our office and denied the
claim.
People v. Michael Pizarro. In 1989, Pizarro was convicted of raping
and killing his 13-year-old half sister. On appeal, the California Court
of Appeal determined that the trial court erred in admitting the results
of DNA testing and the use of a genetic statistical database. Now,
almost 20 years after the murder, the re-trial is underway.
People v. Robert Cissna. In May 2006, Kimberly E., concerned for
the well-being of her daughter, read 14-year-old Sarah’s diary. An
entry stated that Sarah’s grandfather had been raping her since she
was 9-years-old. Three days later, Sarah was interviewed by a social
worker and disclosed that her grandfather had committed various lewd
and lascivious acts upon her over a period of five years ending when
she was about 12-years-old. Our office handled the case because
Sarah’s father is a deputy district attorney and was chief of the juvenile
branch office when the molestation was disclosed. The Attorney
General filed charges against Sarah’s grandfather, Robert Cissna, and
a jury convicted Cissna of continuous sexual abuse of a child under
the age of 14. Cissna, who is 79-years-old, faces a prison term of
between six and 16 years.
53
54
People v. Chandler Cardwell. In August 2007, the Riverside County
District Attorney sought an injunction against members of the East
Side Riva (ESR) gang. Approximately 90 members of the gang were
served a summons and complaint. Cardwell, an associate of the ESR
gang, placed an advertisement in the local newspaper that included
the District Attorney’s home address and personal cell phone number.
As a result of the newspaper ad, the District Attorney and his family
were concerned for their safety and feared retaliation by the ESR
gang. Within days, the defendant was arrested and his residence
searched. Law enforcement found a .45-caliber Glock semi-automatic
handgun, and a 12-gauge shotgun inside his residence. The Attorney
General filed charges against Cardwell and he pled guilty to making a
criminal threat.
Albert Brown v. S.W. Ornoski. Brown ambushed, raped and
strangled a 15-year-old girl on her way to school, and then made
taunting telephone calls to her home and her frantic mother. On direct
appeal in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the case went to the U.S. Supreme
Court once and to the California Supreme Court three times. This
case has been in federal habeas litigation since 1996, and was last
argued in 2007 before the federal Court of Appeals. In May 2008,
Brown filed for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. This
case has now been overseen by the last four California Attorneys
General.
John Visciotti v. Robert Ayers, Warden. Visciotti killed one man
and shot a second man during a robbery and was sentenced to death.
His conviction was affirmed by the California Supreme Court in 1996,
and he sought collateral relief in the federal court. The U.S. Supreme
Court denied his application for relief in 2002, yet Visciotti convinced a
federal court to give him another evidentiary hearing in 2007. Our
office brought this to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court and was
successful in asking the court to stay the proposed hearing.
In 2007, as the result of
evidence obtained from
Operation Gangland, a
San Diego Grand Jury
indicted members of
the Mexican Mafia on
46 felony changes.
Mexican Mafia Investigation. In 2005, while incarcerated in
San Diego, Mexican Mafia member Richard Buchanan arranged for
Patrick Ponce to run the Mexican Mafia's narcotics and extortion
activities in Imperial County. Ponce enlisted several local gang
members, including a confidential informant, to sell heroin and extort
money from drug dealers and alien smugglers. In 2006, the federal
DEA and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
jointly launched Operation Gangland to infiltrate Ponce's organization.
Through confidential informants, surveillance and wiretaps, the
investigation revealed that Ponce ran a highly organized operation,
with extortion and heroin trafficking as its primary activities. In 2007,
the Imperial County District Attorney asked the Attorney General to
assist in prosecuting the case. Buchanan, Ponce and 29 others were
indicted on 46 felony charges, including conspiracy to commit
extortion and narcotic crimes, torture, attempted murder, solicitation of
murder, kidnapping, assault, extortion and attempted extortion, selling
heroin and methamphetamine, and illegally possessing and selling
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
55
firearms. Approximately half of the defendants have pled guilty, and
the others are scheduled to stand trial in late 2008.
People v. Alfredo Valencia. In 1993, Valencia stabbed Roberto Cruz
to death while robbing him. Valencia admitted that he murdered Cruz,
but asserted that he did not rob him. He claimed he acted in the
actual, but unreasonable belief in the need to defend himself while on
methamphetamines. The California Supreme Court affirmed the
imposition of the death sentence against Valencia.
People v. Richard McKee. In a case of first impression, the
California Court of Appeal held that Jessica’s Law, which mandates
indeterminate civil commitments for sexually violent predators, does
not violate constitutional protection of due process, ex post facto and
equal protection.
Thomas Carey v. Matthew Musladin. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ordered a new murder trial for Musladin after concluding that
his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when family members
of the victim wore buttons at trial that bore a photograph of the victim.
In 2007, the Attorney General appealed the decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit’s
decision and reinstated the murder conviction.
John Fry v. Cheryl Pliler, Warden. The Attorney General obtained a
unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in this noteworthy
case which addressed the standard of review of state court convic
tions when reviewed by federal courts on habeas corpus. In 2007, the
Supreme Court held that a prisoner may succeed on his habeas
corpus petition only if he shows that a constitutional error at his state
trial had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the outcome of his trial.
John Cunningham v. California. In this landmark case on
sentencing, the Attorney General defended California’s determinate
sentencing law (DSL) before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2007, a
majority of the court concluded that the DSL violated the U.S.
Constitution because a trial court lacks the discretion to impose an
upper term unless it found an additional aggravating factor not found
by the jury. Relying on the Attorney General’s advice, the California
Legislature quickly modified the DSL to permit greater sentencing
discretion to trial judges.
People v. Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel. In this notorious
San Francisco dog-mauling case, a jury convicted Knoller of seconddegree murder and Noel, her husband, of involuntary manslaughter,
after their two large dogs attacked and killed a neighbor. The trial
judge granted Knoller’s request for a new trial, but our office success
fully appealed that ruling to the California Supreme Court. In 2007,
the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court applied the wrong
standard in reducing Knoller’s murder conviction. The Attorney
General also successfully defended Noel’s conviction.
Deputy Attorney General
Zee Rodriquez received a
Fraudbuster Award from
Department of Insurance
for prosecuting a $1.9
million insurance fraud
case.
56
People v. Ronald Bell. Bell is one of the longest-serving inmates on
death row, sentenced there after his 1979 conviction of the robbery
and murder of a Richmond jeweler. The Attorney General success
fully resisted his most recent challenge to his death sentence, in which
he claimed his now-dead brother was the real killer. A referee
appointed by the California Supreme Court took evidence and rejected
Bell’s claim. The court unanimously upheld the referee’s findings in
late 2007.
People v. Ramon Salcido. In a case drawing international attention,
Salcido was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his
wife and six others, including two of the couple’s young daughters.
The Attorney General successfully defended Salcido’s convictions and
death sentence before the California Supreme Court.
Criminal Supervising
DAG Larry Daniels
received the 2008 William
E. James Award from the
California District
Attorneys Association.
Dwayne Giles v. California. Giles killed his girlfriend to prevent her
from testifying at his trial. In a case interpreting the U.S. Confrontation
Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant forfeits his right
to cross-examine a witness only when his “wrongdoing” was intended to
keep the witness from testifying. The case was remanded for further
proceeding in light of this holding.
Correctional Writs and Appeals Section
The Correctional Writs and Appeals Section defends the policies and
actions of prison officials and the executive branch, ensures that
convicted felons properly serve their sentences under the conditions
prescribed by law, and defends against legal challenges brought by
parolees, juvenile offenders and persons committed to state hospitals.
The majority of the section’s work involves state and federal petitions
for writs of habeas corpus, as well as related appeals challenging
parole denials, parole revocations, and conditions of confinement in
prisons, state hospitals and state juvenile facilities. Section cases
may also arise from Probate Code petitions seeking conservatorship
for medical care of inmates and from quasi-class action lawsuits by
groups of inmates seeking non-monetary relief, such as the invalida
tion of a prison regulation or a change to the parole system.
Significant cases include the following:
In re Sandra Lawrence. In 1971, Lawrence murdered her lover’s wife
after the lover told Lawrence that he would not get a divorce. Lawrence
lived as a fugitive for 11 years, but in 1982, she turned herself in and
was convicted of first-degree murder. She was sentenced to life with
the possibility of parole. In 2005, the Board of Parole Hearings found
Lawrence suitable for parole release. Governor Schwarzenegger,
however, denied Lawrence’s parole. Lawrence successfully challenged
the Governor’s decision in the California Court of Appeal and the
Attorney General sought review in the California Supreme Court. The
court will consider the extent and scope of judicial review of parole
decisions by the Governor. The court has granted review in 11 other
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
parole cases. This case was argued in June 2008, and a decision is
pending.
In re Ronald Hayward. In 1978, Hayward fought with a man in a bar,
stabbing the man 12 times and killing him. He was convicted of
second-degree murder. In 2002, the Board of Parole Hearings found
that Hayward was suitable for parole, but then-Governor Gray Davis
reversed the board’s decision. Hayward challenged the Governor’s
decision in the federal Court of Appeals, which ordered it vacated,
concluding that there was no evidence demonstrating that Hayward
poses a risk to the public and that the Governor’s reliance on an
unchanging factor, such as the crime, may amount to a violation of
federal due process. The Ninth Circuit granted the Attorney General’s
petition for rehearing and heard argument in June 2008. A decision is
pending.
In re Nathan Pope. In 2002, Pope killed his victim while driving under
the influence of alcohol and cocaine. He pled guilty to vehicular
manslaughter, a non-violent felony, and two counts of alcohol-related
driving causing great bodily injury, a violent felony. Although the fiveyear sentence on the alcohol-related driving offenses was stayed,
prison officials determined that Pope was subject to a 15 percent
limitation on the credits he could earn against his sentence because
he had been convicted of two violent felonies. Pope successfully
challenged this determination in a habeas corpus petition on the
ground that he was not subject to the limitation because the sentences
on his violent felonies were stayed. The Attorney General filed an
appeal in the California Court of Appeal and prevailed. The appellate
court analyzed the matter in accordance with the principles of
California’s three-strikes law and determined that Pope was subject to
the limitation because without it, he could potentially serve less time
than he would have if he had not caused the death of his victim. The
California Supreme Court granted review and the case is pending.
In re Leslie Van Houten. In 1969, Van Houten, a former Manson
family member, participated in the brutal murders of Leno and
Rosemary La Bianca. Van Houten was convicted of two counts of
first-degree murder and received the death penalty. However, when
California’s death penalty was abolished in 1972, her sentence was
commuted to life with the possibility of parole. The Board of Parole
Hearings has never found Van Houten suitable for parole, and she has
challenged her parole denials numerous times over the past several
years. Van Houten is currently challenging her 2004 parole denial in
federal court and the Attorney General is opposing her petition on
behalf of the parole board.
Special Crimes Unit
The Special Crimes Unit assists federal, state and local law enforce
ment agencies in the investigation and prosecution of large-scale,
multi-jurisdictional investment frauds and business crimes. The unit
also handles high-tech computer crimes where the scope and
57
58
complexity exceed the investigative and prosecutorial resources of the
law enforcement agencies.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. Michael Vousden. Vousden sold medical malpractice
insurance to women’s health clinics. After several clinics filed
malpractice claims, an investigation revealed that Vousden was
diverting insurance premiums for his personal gain. After a five-week
jury trial, Vousden was convicted of grand theft and tax infractions.
People v. Theodore Swain. Swain sold over $13 million in invest
ment mortgage certificates to investors. He failed to invest this money
in legitimate real estate transactions. Following a six-week trial, a San
Diego jury found Swain guilty of securities fraud and grand theft.
People v. Clarence Joseph Hall III. Hall sold special event liability
insurance for large, public events. He collected over $2 million in
insurance premiums for policies he failed to deliver. Hall was
convicted of 63 counts of insurance fraud, theft and forgery, and was
sentenced to state prison. Over $1.2 million was seized by search
warrant and distributed to over 420 California victims.
An identity theft
scheme resulted in
a $2 million loss to
victims.
People v. Charles Merritt-Osborne. Six defendants engaged in an
intricate conspiracy to steal identities for the purpose of creating and
incorporating fictitious corporations with falsified financial statements.
Once they established corporate credit lines, defendants purchased
gift cards, cellular phones and computer components to sell over
eBay. Defendants failed to repay their purchase loans. The total loss
to the victims exceeded $2 million. Three defendants have entered
guilty pleas and are awaiting sentencing. The remaining three
defendants are awaiting trial.
People v. Terrance Malone and Varee Hayes. Malone and Hayes,
both Texas residents, were convicted of conspiracy and theft for their
scheme of “refunding” stolen merchandise at upscale retailers, such
as William-Sonoma. In four years, they traveled through 34 states
returning merchandise and receiving credit in excess of $250,000 from
William-Sonoma alone. Evidence showed they engaged in over 2,000
return transactions in five years. They both entered guilty pleas and
are awaiting sentencing.
Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse
Recently recognized by the federal Health and Human Services
Agency as the premier Medicaid fraud control unit in the nation, the
Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse is a vertically integrated
program where criminal and civil prosecutors work in close partnership
with sworn law enforcement personnel and forensic auditors to fulfill its
two-pronged mission: (1) to protect the state's $38 billion Medi-Cal
program from provider fraud and abuse; and (2) to investigate and
prosecute elder abuse, as well as neglect and poor quality of care
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
59
occurring in health care facilities, such as hospitals, skilled nursing
facilities and residential care facilities.
Significant cases include the following:
People v. Tahir Saeed. Saeed, a kingpin in an organized crime ring
that defrauded California's Medi-Cal program of more than $20 million,
received a prison sentence of more than 18 years. The sentence is
the longest in United States’ history for a healthcare fraud conviction.
People v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc. The Attorney General sued the
nation's largest provider of nursing home care, Beverly Enterprises,
Inc., for providing substandard care. In addition to paying more than
$2.5 million in criminal and civil fines and penalties, all 60 Beverly
facilities doing business in California are bound by a permanent
injunction, requiring court-enforceable improvements in the quality of
care they provide to more than 13,000 California patients.
The Bureau of Medi-Cal
Fraud and Elder Abuse
prosecuted the nation’s
largest provider of nursing
home care for providing
substandard care.
Crime and Violence Prevention Center
The Crime and Violence Prevention Center (CVPC) develops policy,
programs and resources for crime prevention in areas such as,
domestic violence, gangs, hate crimes, child abuse, elder abuse,
human trafficking and illegal drug use. It partners with local, state and
federal agencies and community organizations.
Significant highlights include the following:
Safe Passage Partnerships to Reduce Gang Violence
Around Schools. CVPC’s community relations unit spear
headed a safe passage program partnership at 16 high schools
in Southern California that were experiencing gang-related
problems. More than 30,000 students facing gang-related
threats were helped by this program. CVPC also participated in
the California Multi-City Gang Prevention Network which works
to reduce gang violence.
Report on Human Trafficking. In 2007, CVPC released,
Human Trafficking in California, the Final Report of the
California Alliance to Combat Trafficking and Slavery Task
Force. This legislatively mandated report recommended:
(1) to increase awareness of human rights abuse in California;
(2) to bolster support for victims; (3) to provide better tools for law
enforcement and prosecutors to combat this problem; and (4) to
launch new programs to prevent human trafficking in California.
Campaign Against Providing Alcohol to Minors. In 2007, CVPC
launched the Responsible Adults − Safe Teens, a multi-media public
awareness campaign to inform parents and others about state laws
against providing alcohol to minors.
ate Passage
Partnership
60
Grant Awards to Strengthen School Safety. The School/Law
Enforcement Partnership, a joint effort of the California Department of
Education and the Attorney General's Office, allocates over
$18 million annually through a grant process to support school
violence prevention and school safety. In 2007, 36 California schools
were awarded grants.
Children Exposed to Domestic Violence. In 2007, CVPC released
a statewide law enforcement protocol, Children Explosed to Domestic
Violence. This report was published to help law enforcement, child
protective services and other organizations respond to incidents of
domestic violence involving children. The report recommends
procedures for protecting these at-risk children.
Domestic Violence and Firearms Project. The San Mateo and
Butte County Sheriffs collaborated with CVPC and the Bureau of
Firearms to implement the Firearms Domestic Violence Education and
Intervention Pilot Project. The goal of this project is to protect family
members from people who are prohibited from possessing firearms.
Initiative to Protect Children from Violence. Through the Safe from
the Start Project, CVPC sponsored POST-certified training sessions,
radio spots, and other public awareness activities to protect children
from violence.
CalifornIa Attorney General's
Safe
from the
Start
Reducing Children's Exposure To Violence
SafeState Website. CVPC's award-winning website, www.SafeState.org,
which was developed to protect children from violence, received 750,000
visitors and distributed over 67,000 CVPC publications.
Publications and Media Productions. CVPC provided over 200,000
copies of its 60 publications to the public. CVPC also produced a
dozen new publications and co-produced a DVD for the Division of Law
Enforcement’s recruitment of DOJ Special Agents.
Child Abuse Prevention. CVPC provided child-abuse training on
state laws pertaining to identifying and reporting child abuse and
neglect. CVPC assisted the State Child Death Review Council, which
supports local child death review teams in their efforts to prevent fatal
child abuse and neglect. The legislatively created council meets
quarterly to discuss legislation, data collection and prosecution of child
abuse and neglect cases.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Criminal Law
61
Office of Native American Affairs
The Office of Native American Affairs was established to coordinate
with California’s 107 federally recognized tribes. The office assists
Native American communities by fostering good relationships between
the DOJ, the Tribal governments, and state and local law enforcement
agencies.
The Office of Native
American Affairs is the
DOJ liaison with Tribal
governments, law
enforcement agencies
and the courts.
Tribal Public Safety. The office assists and trains many California
tribes as they develop police agencies and justice systems. To
facilitate this effort, the office collaborates with tribes, sheriffs and
district attorneys.
Tribal and State Justice Conference. The office facilitates semi
annual Tribal and state justice summits on justice issues. The co
sponsors include state agencies, the California State Sheriffs’
Association, Tribal governments, federal justice agencies and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Office of Victim Services
The Office of Victim Services was created to respond on a statewide
level to victims of crime and to ensure that victims are notified of
criminal proceedings as required by the California Constitution.
Capital Cases. The office notifies the families of victims in death
penalty cases on the status of their case. When an execution is
scheduled, the office prepares a press packet providing a detailed
account of the victim’s life and the impact of the murder on the family
and the community. In the weeks leading up to an execution, staff
work with the family and respond to their questions and concerns.
Representatives from the office attend the execution and provide
support to the family.
Non-Capital Cases. The Attorney General is responsible for
prosecuting all non-capital case appeals. The Office of Victim
Services notifies victims on the status of these appeals.
Community Outreach and Response. The office receives many
calls from victims on a daily basis through its toll-free telephone
number. It issues publications on victim issues, victims’ rights, the
appeal process, clemency and execution. These publications serve as
a resource to victims, district attorneys, probation officers, and
witnesses. The Attorney General also sponsors an annual Victims’
Rights Conference which provides training and information to victims,
law enforcement, district attorneys, and victims’ rights groups.
The Office of Victim
Services responds
on a statewide level
to victims of crime.
62
Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program
In 2007-2008, the Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program (SAPP)
provided grants totaling $3.27 million to 43 counties/district attorneys
and four city attorneys for vertical prosecution, investigation, and
counseling services for the most difficult family violence cases. These
grants helped counties to review 37,919 cases of domestic violence.
Of these cases, 17,924 cases of domestic violence were prosecuted
and 11,930 defendants were convicted of domestic violence.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of California Justice Information Services
DIVISION OF CALIFORNIA JUSTICE
INFORMATION SERVICES
The Division of California Justice Information Services (DCJIS), through
its 1,394 employees, provides accurate, timely and comprehensive
criminal history and analysis data to police and sheriffs, district attorneys,
and local and state regulatory agencies.
The bureaus within the Division of California Justice Information Services
include:
•
Application Development
•
Criminal Identification and Information
•
Criminal Information Analysis
•
Infrastructure Support
•
Departmental Services
•
Computer Operations
•
Operations Support
Application Development Bureau
The Application Development Bureau develops and supports computer
applications that are used by the DOJ and other law enforcement
agencies. Significant developments on two of these systems are as
follows:
Automated Criminal History System. The Automated Criminal History
System, the largest and most complex DOJ application, provides compre
hensive information about people who have been arrested or convicted of
a crime. The bureau is currently upgrading this application to improve the
exchange of data with other agencies.
Child Support Information System. The California Parent Locator
Service, part of DOJ since 1953, was moved to the newly created
Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). During the transition,
DOJ maintained the Child Support Information System, processing over
2 million cases. In 2007, DCSS deployed its own statewide child support
system, and the DOJ child support application was decommissioned.
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information
Comprised of eight programs, the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Information is the central repository of fingerprints and criminal history
information used by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies,
courts, regulatory agencies and the public.
63
64
Automated Subsequent Arrest Notification Service. Since December
2007, the DOJ has been required to notify employers and regulatory
agencies of an arrest of an employee or a licensee. New automation has
enabled the bureau to more quickly notify employers and regulatory
agencies of an arrest. Timely notification of arrests is essential for public
safety because many employees hold positions of trust involving
vulnerable citizens, such as children, the disabled and seniors.
Automated Disposition Reporting. Case dispositions from county
agencies are submitted electronically to the bureau for processing and
updating in its Automated Criminal History System. In 2007, there were
1.1 million case dispositions submitted.
CAL ID contains 20
million fingerprints,
making it the second
largest fingerprint
identification system
in the nation.
Automated Fingerprint Identification System. CAL-ID, an Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), is the second largest fingerprint
identification system in the nation, containing over 20 million criminal and
applicant fingerprint records. In 2007, CAL-ID's AFIS increased its
storage capacity to process a growing number of electronic fingerprint
transactions. It processed approximately 1.5 million criminal and
1.6 million applicant transactions, and added 1.7 million new records.
Automated Latent Print Section. This section compares finger and
palm prints obtained at crime scenes with the DOJ’s known criminal
offender database. In 2007, the bureau installed new software to
enhance matching compatibilities. In 2007, 3,000 suspects were
identified, an increase “hit” rate of 10 percent.
Live Scan Technology. Live scan technology electronically transmits
fingerprints and up-to-date criminal history information for both criminal
and applicant purposes. As of 2008, there are now 2,400 live scan
devices installed throughout the state. The key benefit of this technology
is that the response time to agencies submitting fingerprint data has
dramatically shortened.
Integration Efforts in 2008. The bureau automated its process for the
collection and indexing of DNA samples in anticipation of the increased
number of cases as a result of Proposition 69. Proposition 69 requires
the collection of DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony.
Automation of the formerly manual process is projected to significantly
reduce labor hours of local agencies.
Bureau of Criminal Information Analysis
The Bureau of Criminal Information Analysis maintains several important
automated systems, including: Missing and Unidentified Persons, Sex
and Arson Offender Registrants, Wanted Persons, Domestic Violence
and Restraining Orders, Stolen Vehicles, and Automated Property. The
bureau also collects, maintains and publishes criminal statistical data, and
maintains the Child Abuse Central Index.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of California Justice Information Services
65
Significant projects include the following:
Violent Crime Information Network Renovation. The Violent Crime
Information Network is being upgraded to a web-based application to
permit law enforcement agencies to access and update information on
violent crime registrants. The project is scheduled to be completed by
July 2010.
Live Scan Registration Type-of-Transaction. In July 2007, DOJ
released a new live scan registration that is directly linked to the Violent
Crime Information Network. This new system, called Registration Typeof-Transaction (REG TOT), is used by law enforcement agencies
statewide to register both sex and arson offenders as required by the
Penal Code.
Infrastructure Support Bureau
The Infrastructure Support Bureau designs, coordinates, installs and
supports networks that connect California’s law enforcement community,
DOJ, and national criminal justice systems.
Departmental Services Bureau
The Departmental Services Bureau develops and maintains the DOJ
Internet/Intranet, the Consolidated Firearms Information System and
other computer and technology applications. The bureau also protects
the systems from viruses and ensures privacy.
Significant projects include the following:
Electronic Recording Delivery System. The Electronic Recording
Delivery system is used by county recorders to electronically record real
estate transactions. The system became effective in 2007 and is
overseen, certified and regulated by the Attorney General.
Prescription Monitoring Program Information Exchange. Misuse of
controlled substances is a serious problem throughout the United States.
The Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) information exchange is a
web-based service that was created to identify and prevent drug diversion
by prescribers, dispensers and patients. The DOJ’s PMP is being used
as a model by other states.
Armed and Prohibited Persons System. The Department is tasked
with determining the eligibility of people to purchase firearms in California.
In 2002, the bureau created the Armed Prohibited Persons System
(APPS), which made California the first state to use an automated system
to track the owners of handgun and assault weapons and others who are
ineligible to possess a firearm.
Prescription
monitoring programs
can identify and
prevent diversion and
misuse of controlled
substances.
66
Case Information Management System. This computer technology
helps law enforcement and agents fight crime by managing the
enforcement and investigation of cases. The system encourages and
supports cross-sharing and cross-case analysis.
Computer Operations Bureau
The Computer
Operations Bureau
provides 24-hour
support to more
than 800 California
criminal justice
agencies.
The Computer Operations Bureau is responsible for 24-hour technology
support to over 800 criminal justice agencies statewide. The bureau
protects the confidentiality and integrity of the Department’s sensitive and
confidential data, checks for vulnerabilities, and detects intrusion into the
DOJ network. In addition, the bureau monitors employees’ use of the
Internet and e-mail systems.
CJIS Technology Refresh Project. The CJIS Technology Refresh
Project includes updating and installing: a mainframe for the Hawkins
Data Center, a virtual tape system, storage area networks in Sacramento
and Orange County, a disaster recovery mainframe system, and backup
and recovery storage systems.
Operations Support Branch
The Operations Support Branch provides training and operational advice
to law enforcement agencies that use the DOJ communication systems
and databases.
Applicant Agency Compliance and Training. The branch advises law
enforcement agencies on policies, procedures and requirements
regarding the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
(CLETS) and the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS).
Law Enforcement Zone Meetings. The branch coordinates the Attorney
General’s law enforcement meetings with local police chiefs, sheriffs,
district attorneys and other law enforcement personnel in the eight law
enforcement zones in California. The meetings provide an opportunity to
collaborate and coordinate on law enforcement activities.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Administrative Support
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The Division of Administrative Support, through its 1,025 employees,
assists in the day-to-day operations of the DOJ and provides support
to programs in administrative and technical areas, such as accounting,
budgeting, personnel, asset management, facilities, procurement,
contracting, conferencing, recycling, project management, training, law
library services, legal case management, time reporting, litigation
support, and legal operations support.
The primary components of the Division of Administrative Support
include:
•
Fiscal Programs
•
Office of Departmental Services
•
Personnel Programs
•
Office of Professional Development
•
Legal Support Operations
•
Information Support Services
•
Management Analysis and Policy Development
Green Office. In January 2008, the Department embarked on a
statewide effort to identify, reduce and mitigate any harmful environ
mental effects of its operations. A green charter was established to set
forth key objectives and authorize the establishment of a committee to
carry out those objectives. The committee addressed projects such
as: increasing and improving sustainable business practices;
informing and educating employees about pollution prevention,
greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation and solid waste
reduction; and increasing recycling efforts.
A desktop power management software is being tested to make the
DOJ more environmentally responsible. This software may save up to
50 percent in computer and monitor electrical usage. Utility rebates
could offset an initial investment by as much as 80 percent.
Fiscal Programs
Accounting Office. The office is comprised of two programs: the
Account Payment Program and the Financial Accounting Program. These
programs collaborate to maintain centralized records of appropriations,
expenditures, revenues, reimbursements and legal case billing infor
mation. Additionally, these programs provide cash flow analysis and an
accurate accounting of DOJ activities to state control agencies.
67
68
For Fiscal Year 2007/2008,
the DOJ annual budget
was $834 million.
•
Laser Check Pilot Project. The Department operates with one
primary revolving fund unit in Sacramento, and 25 sub-revolving
fund liaisons in the field offices statewide. A new laser check
project will streamline the check process by allowing immediate
input by the field offices into the Department’s accounting system.
The new process will also provide detailed information on
employee travel activities. In late 2008, the Sacramento office will
begin the pilot project, with implementation in all DOJ offices in
2009.
•
California Automated Travel Expense Reimbursement
System (CALATERS). In late 2008, the Department, working
with the State Controller’s Office, will implement the CALATERS
automated travel expense claim system. This new system will
allow employees to prepare travel claims on-line and send them
through an electronic approval process.
•
FI$CAL Project. Fi$CAL, a multi-year project sponsored by the
Department of Finance and other control agencies, will stan
dardize fiscal reporting among all state agencies. The DOJ
Accounting Office and Information Support Services have worked
on the initial system requirements for the past two years. The
Department is scheduled to be one of the first agencies to use this
new financial reporting system, with implementation projected for
2010.
Budget Office. The Budget Office is responsible for DOJ’s annual
financial plan and provides technical direction and support to program
managers in the preparation, negotiation and maintenance of the
Department’s annual budget.
Office of Departmental Services
The Office of Departmental Services provides a wide range of
business support services to statewide programs throughout DOJ,
including facilities management, telecommunications services,
contracting, purchasing, warehousing, printing and mail/delivery
operations.
Release of DOJ Procurement Information. DOJ implemented new
protocols for public inspection and duplication of documents, such as
contracts for services, consultants and commodities. The new
protocols ensure management oversight in registering public
procurement documents in the state's contracting and procedure
system, and justifying information that is confidential and statutorily
exempted (e.g., DOJ strategic litigation, attorney-client privilege, officer
safety, and law enforcement mission information). The new
procedures improve the transparency of DOJ procurement documents
to the public, while also protecting DOJ's critical missions.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Administrative Support
Facilities Planning and Management and Telecommunications
Section. The section manages over 90 DOJ facilities statewide,
including 20 anti-crime task force offices, 11 forensic crime labora
tories, 10 regional law enforcement offices, 6 legal offices, 3 aircraft
hangers, the Hawkins Data Center, multiple field offices and radio
sites.
•
New Crime Laboratories. In 2007, the section completed bondfinanced construction of two new DOJ-owned forensic crime
laboratories in Santa Barbara and Santa Rosa, and a large
expansion and upgrade of a state-of-the-art DNA laboratory in
Richmond. These facilities are now occupied and fully
operational.
•
Regional Law Enforcement Offices. The Department reduced
facility costs by consolidating five DOJ crime-fighting bureaus into
a new 27,000 square foot regional law enforcement office in
Riverside. Additionally, the Redding Regional Law Enforcement
Office was expanded by 2,500 square feet to accommodate three
bureaus that were previously housed separately.
•
Expansion/New Office Space. The section expanded office
space for the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse in
San Diego and Burbank to accommodate a growing staff.
Additional Narcotic Enforcement Task Force office space was
acquired in Stockton, Bakersfield, Hayward, San Bernardino,
South Lake Tahoe and Palm Springs to assist local law enforce
ment agencies in combating drug crimes.
Personnel Programs Section
Personnel Programs is responsible for all facets of employment for the
DOJ’s 5,832 positions. The section is comprised of five units that
handle classification and pay, labor relations, risk management, testing
and selection, and personnel transactions.
Hiring and Appointments. The Hiring and Appointment Unit
oversees the hiring and promotional process by providing direction and
training to managers/supervisors department-wide. In 2007, the unit
worked closely with the Equal Employment Rights and Resolution
Office to develop the Department’s new hiring policy. As a result of
this effort, a comprehensive hiring manual was developed for all DOJ
managers and supervisors.
Reorganization Implementation. The reorganization of the
Department’s divisions and programs under the Brown administration
improved administrative efficiency and effectiveness. The Personnel
Section assisted with the consolidation.
69
70
Recruitment Program. The Testing and Selection Unit has
completed several web-based endeavors, including:
• Implementing an exam recruitment survey;
• Using search engines and social networking tools to target
more candidates;
• Posting job recruitment videos;
• Using executive search techniques for senior management and
high-level positions.
JOB System. Through collaboration with the DOJ’s Hawkins Data
Center, the Department established an automated job announcement
system to streamline the advertising process for vacant positions and
to ensure consistency in job advertising. To date, over 1,500 job
announcements have been posted statewide through this new
automated system.
Testing and Selection. The Testing and Selection Unit administered
173 examinations − 8,400 applications were reviewed for these exams
and 4,000 eligible candidates were placed on employment lists. The
unit also issued 1,242 certification employment lists to managers and
supervisors for hiring and recruitment purposes.
Continuous Testing. In the past, applicants for employment
frequently lost interest in employment because of significant delays.
The Department now offers continuous testing in jobs requiring
specialized skills and for positions in remote and high-cost locations.
Continuous Exams Offered by DOJ
•
Attorneys: Deputy Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General III,
and Supervising Deputy Attorney General.
• Analysts: Associate Budget Analyst, Associate Governmental
Program Analyst, Associate Personnel Analyst, Legal Analyst,
and Staff Services Analyst (transfer exam).
• Criminalists: Criminalist, Senior Criminalist, Criminalist Supervisor,
and Criminalist Manager.
•
Special Agent
•
Investigative Auditor III
Legal Secretary
•
State Contract Negotiations. In 2007/2008, memoranda of under
standing expired with the Service Employees International Union,
Local 1000, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association,
and the California attorneys’ union (CASE). These three collective
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Administrative Support
71
bargaining organizations represent the majority of DOJ employees and
the DOJ’s Labor Relations Office is currently in contract negotiations
with these entities.
Health and Safety Program. The Risk Management Unit upgraded
its automated electronic defibrillators in all DOJ-occupied facilities.
The unit coordinated training on the updated devices for all DOJ
CPR/First Aid monitor staff.
Personnel Automation. The Transactions Unit, in partnership with
the Accounting Office, improved its method for releasing $83 million in
monthly pay warrants via electronic format. The unit also developed
an electronic process for distributing and retaining employee cata
strophic time bank information. The unit uses the Department’s new
human resource management system, which provides real-time
information, thus expediting services for DOJ employees.
Office of Professional Development
The Office of Professional Development (OPD) provides professional
development and training opportunities to all DOJ employees. Course
offerings include: new employee orientations, mandatory training and
critical job skill classes, desktop applications, continuing legal
education for attorneys, legal secretarial training, basic supervision
training, and case management and time reporting training for legal
staff. Since mid-2007, 2,300 DOJ employees attended 300 OPD
facilitated training courses.
Continuing Legal Education Classes. In 2007, OPD contracted with
the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) to provide multi-day
training on deposition and trial advocacy skills to 300 deputy attorneys
general. Over 20 experienced DOJ attorneys volunteered as
facilitators to assist the NITA faculty, which consisted of prominent
judges, law professors and practicing attorneys.
Basic Supervision Training for Supervising Deputy Attorneys
General. As a result of the new supervising deputy attorney general
classification, OPD facilitated a customized in-house basic supervision
training to 240 supervising attorneys in 2007.
Word 2007. In late 2008, the entire Department will change its word
processing application from WordPerfect 8 to Word 2007. OPD will
provide Word training to all DOJ employees to ensure a smooth
transition from WordPerfect.
Paralegal Development Program. The Department established a
paralegal development program in 2007. The goal of the program was
to create a training curriculum for all DOJ paralegals and establish
guidelines for attorneys on the effective use of paralegals. The first
phase of training will be offered in late 2008.
The Office of Professional
Development trained over
2,300 employees in
one year.
72
Legal Support Operations Branch
Consisting of 625 staff statewide, the Legal Support Operations
Branch provides administrative services to the Attorney General’s six
regional law offices. Services include legal secretarial and clerical
support, business and office services, digital printing and repro
graphics, docketing and records management, procurement and
facilities management.
The branch provides legal secretarial support to over 1,200 attorneys
and paralegals in 24 sections and assists in preparing and filing legal
documents in all state and federal courts.
Legal Office Administrator II Reclassification. In 2007, the
responsibilities of the Legal Office Administrator II staff who manage
the operations in the Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego and Bay
Area legal offices were increased to include facility management. This
change in duties resulted in an upgrade for these staff to the Staff
Services Manager II classification.
Since late 2006,
nearly 1 million
pages of legal
documents have
been converted
to electronic
format.
Paperless Offices of the Future. The branch assists in converting
hundreds of thousands of paper documents to an electronic, paperless
format. It initiated a “paperless legal office” program to expand digital
imaging technology for case docketing and records management.
Since late 2006, close to one million pages of legal documents have
been converted to electronic format and uploaded to the legal case
management system. This has increased efficiency and reduced
costs.
Information Support Services
Information Support Services provides technical and support services
in the areas of litigation support, legal knowledge management, case
management and time reporting functions, and strategic administrative
projects.
Strategic Planning Office. The office provides project oversight and
control to improve integration of projects. The office has two signifi
cant projects underway:
•
New Asset Management System. In 2007, DOJ implemented
the Asset Management System (AMS) in which all DOJ assets
(furniture, computers, equipment, etc.) are managed through one
centralized, secure database. AMS tracks and manages
department assets from procurement through salvage. AMS
simplifies accounting tasks by eliminating the manual asset and
labor intensive accounting reconciliation process.
•
New Human Resources Management System. In 2008, the
DOJ implemented a new Human Resources Management System
to replace an antiquated personnel system. This new single
system now ensures more reliable employee data.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Division of Administrative Support
73
Litigation Support Section. The section provides automated
litigation support services, including a wide range of professional
services and software applications to help attorneys and paralegals
acquire, organize, develop and present evidence in litigation.
•
Electronically Stored Information. The unit purchased new
hardware and software to increase by 50 percent its ability to
process and review electronically stored information.
•
Knowledge Management System Overhaul. The unit supports
three office-wide knowledge management systems: the
Civil/Public Rights brief banks, the mediator database, and the
expert witness database. These systems provide DOJ legal staff
with access to colleague work-product and a directory of
mediators and experts. In 2008, these systems were revamped
and updated.
•
Technological Improvements. The unit recently upgraded
several applications used for document management and trial
preparation, including Adobe Creative Suite 3, Illustrator and
Photoshop. These applications provide options for creating visual
aids for exhibits and trial presentations. Video hubs were also
purchased to create digital and analog videos.
Staff Services Unit. The unit provides technical assistance to legal
support staff in creating, formatting and filing legal documents, and in
supporting word processing and desktop applications used in the legal
divisions. The unit manages the content on the legal divisions’ Intranet
and researches, tests and recommends new technology. The unit also
facilitates video conferences in the legal offices.
•
Electronic Case Filings. The unit provides technical assistance
to legal staff on converting documents and exhibits for electronic
filing in the federal district courts.
Law Library Services Section. This section manages the law
libraries in the legal offices statewide and provides research services
to executive, legal, administrative and law enforcement staff.
Librarians obtain books from on-line resources, document delivery
services or inter-library loans from across the country. The libraries
also furnish and maintain frequently used codes and court rules books
and manage Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw accounts. The Law Library's
Intranet provides access to a catalog of holdings in the Department’s
law libraries and links to useful resource websites.
•
Legislative Histories. The Law Library staff compile 25 to 30
legislative histories each month, providing attorneys with
documents that shed light on the intent of statutes.
All federal district
courts now mandate
electronic filing of
legal documents.
74
Case Management Section. The section is responsible for
developing, implementing and maintaining the legal case management
and time reporting system (ProLaw) used by the legal staff. The
section operates primarily as a technical and business services unit
that works with the Accounting Unit, Budget Office and the legal
divisions.
The section’s current projects include prioritizing reimbursable work,
identifying and assisting with billing or client changes, preparing
monthly legal billing, processing cost of suit, analyzing legal division
workload, and preparing reports to managers, clients and others.
The section is working to upgrade to ProLaw Version 11 and to
transition from WordPerfect 8 to Word 2007 word processing
programs.
Management Analysis and Policy Development
The Management Analysis and Policy Development Unit provides
support to the Division of Administrative Support on policy and admini
strative and analytical projects that have department-wide significance.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Programs
75
EXECUTIVE PROGRAMS
The Executive Programs function as a support network for the Attorney
General and includes those functions not directly related to the office’s
litigation or law enforcement responsibilities. The primary components
of the Executive Programs include:
•
Office of Communications
•
Special Assistant Attorneys General
•
Office of Legislative Affairs
•
Office of Program Review and Audits
•
Equal Employment Rights and Resolution Office
•
Solicitor General / Opinion Unit
Office of Communications
The Office of Communications oversees media relations through the
Press Secretary, departmental publications through the Media and
Publication Resource Center, and public inquires through the Public
Inquiry Unit. The office organizes news conferences for the Attorney
General, provides the media with information on activities of the
Attorney General and the DOJ, conducts research, prepares news
advisories, news releases, opinion editorials and other departmental
publications, and responds to daily inquiries.
Public Inquiry Unit. The Public Inquiry Unit is the primary public
point-of-contact for persons who seek assistance and information from
the Attorney General’s Office. The unit annually receives and responds
to approximately 200,000 written and telephone inquiries from the
public, elected officials, law enforcement agencies and other govern
mental entities on a wide variety of subjects and issues.
Alternate Dispute Resolution Program. The office takes a leading
role in helping consumers resolve their disputes with California
businesses. In many instances, after a complaint is received by the
Public Inquiry Unit, the company or individual is contacted and the
consumer issue is resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Through
this informal mediation process, over 1,000 disputes are resolved by
the Public Inquiry Unit each month.
Under the Brown
Administration, the
cost and number of
executive programs
was greatly reduced.
76
Correspondence Storage, Tracking and Response (C-STAR) System.
An average of 40,000 letters, e-mails and faxes are sent to the Attorney
General's Office each year and are routed through the Public Inquiry Unit.
The unit has implemented an automated system (C-STAR) to manage all
aspects of handling constituent correspondence. C-STAR has enabled
staff to respond to inquiries within 10 days of receipt.
The Public Inquiry Unit
takes a leading role in
helping consumers
resolve their disputes
with California
businesses.
Consumer Protection. The unit works closely with attorneys in the
Consumer Law Section on consumer issues and provides the
attorneys with monthly reports that identify complaints the Attorney
General has received against specific companies. The unit flags
violations of California law that may warrant further action. The
consumer complaint information may be used to support investigations
and lawsuits and may be shared with consumer protection divisions of
other governmental and law enforcement agencies, such as district
attorneys, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Postal
Inspector.
Telephone Hotline. Each year, more than 140,000 constituents call
the Attorney General’s public telephone hotline. The telephone system
provides automated responses to frequently requested information,
and constituents are also given the option to speak to an analyst.
Accessibility for All Constituents. The unit has the ability to
respond to telephone and written queries in foreign languages. In
addition, the unit provides reasonable accommodation to disabled
constituents by offering services such as complaint transcription and
materials in alternative language formats.
Special Assistant Attorneys General
The Special Assistant Attorneys General are appointed by the Attorney
General to focus on the priorities of his administration, such as global
warming, consumer issues and law enforcement. Special Assistants
also serve as the Attorney General’s designee on task forces,
commissions and committees and serve as liaisons with local, state
and federal agencies, associations and advocacy groups. Under the
Brown Administration, the number of Special Assistant positions has
been greatly reduced.
Office of Legislative Affairs
The Office of Legislative Affairs is the Attorney General’s liaison on
legislative matters, especially those that affect the Department. The
office is responsible for coordinating DOJ's communications with
Congress and seeks federal earmark funding for DOJ's law
enforcement programs.
The Attorney General sponsored 16 bills during the biennial period,
most of which had a direct connection to the work of the department.
Included among these sponsored bills are:
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Programs
77
AB 1975 (Solorio). This bill would make permanent a $2 fee on death
certificates to fund the DOJ's Missing Persons DNA Program.
AB 2801 (Carter). This bill would add an additional remote-interest
exception to the conflict-of-interest law to allow public bodies in limited
circumstances to enter into settlement agreements in which a member
has a financial interest.
SB 1164 (Scott). This bill would amend the Penal Code to allow DOJ
investigative auditors to serve search warrants.
SB 1615 (Florez). This bill would provide the Attorney General with the
discretion to appoint employees of the DOJ to various boards and
commissions that require a representative for the Attorney General.
Office of Program Review and Audits
The Office of Program Review and Audits is the DOJ’s primary internal
audit organization. The office ensures that the Department meets
Government Code requirements for accounting and internal control.
The office reduces departmental risk by providing information and
recommending solutions to DOJ programs to improve operational
efficiency. The office also conducts internal control and program
audits, program evaluations, and management reviews. The office
coordinates external audit requests and responses from the Bureau of
State Audits (BSA), Department of General Services, U.S. DOJ and
various other state and federal agencies, and assists in defending the
Department’s policies, processes and practices. The office coordi
nates responses to “whistleblower” complaints filed with the BSA and
acts as a liaison with the BSA.
The office serves as the Department’s Privacy and Information
Security Office and works closely with the DOJ’s Network Information
Security Unit to develop policy and procedures to ensure compliance
with state and federal laws.
Equal Employment Rights and Resolution Office
The Equal Employment Rights and Resolution Office ensures equal
employment opportunities within DOJ, consistent with state and federal
laws. The office administers the Department’s discrimination
complaint process, monitors departmental employment processes,
provides training and works to provide a workplace free of discrimi
nation and harassment.
The office manages several programs and services including: the
Employee Assistance Program, the State Employee Mediation
Program, the Bilingual Services Program, the Upward Mobility
Program, the Equal Employment Opportunity Counseling Program, the
Career Counseling Program, and the Wellness Program. The office
The Equal Employment
Rights and Resolution
Office helps to
ensure equal
opportunities in DOJ.
78
also helps DOJ employees identify and resolve potential workplace
issues and works with the DOJ employee advisory committees.
Training Programs. The office conducts Harassment and
Discrimination Prevention classroom training to over 1,500 DOJ
employees annually. It also provides diversity and inclusion
awareness training, upward mobility skill-building workshops and EEO
counselor development.
Law Enforcement Programs. The office provides a custom-designed
employee-assistance program orientation to DOJ Special Agents to
address the unique stressors inherent in law enforcement work. The
orientations also cover procedures for critical incident debriefings.
Bilingual Services. The office provides translation services in 41
languages. The service now includes in-house translations of legal
and law enforcement documents.
Solicitor General Unit
The Solicitor
General’s Unit seeks
to ensure excellence
in presentation of
cases before the
state and federal
supreme courts.
The Solicitor General’s Unit promotes a high level of quality in the
Attorney General’s Office legal practice, particularly in the California
Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The unit helps to
determine whether to seek review of a case in the state or federal
supreme court, assists deputy attorneys general in writing petitions
and briefs, consults with deputies in preparing for oral argument, and
provides general instruction regarding Supreme Court procedures.
The unit also coordinates and participates in the supervision of amicus
curiae briefs filed by the Attorney General in the Supreme Courts and
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Solicitor General is the Attorney General’s liaison to state and
federal appellate courts in matters relating to the conduct of the
Attorney General’s litigation efforts. The Solicitor General is also the
Attorney General’s liaison with Solicitors General of other states and
with the National Association of Attorneys General concerning matters
relating to litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Solicitor
General is the statutory designee for receipt of service of all briefs filed
in the California Supreme Court or specific civil rights’ violations cases
filed in the state appellate courts. The unit was recently expanded to
include and oversee the Attorney General’s Opinion Unit.
Opinion Unit. The Opinion Unit prepares and distributes formal,
written opinions in response to legal questions from legislators, state
agencies, district attorneys, county counsel, city prosecutors and
county sheriffs.
The unit also responds to requests for permission to bring quo
warranto actions (disputes over the right of public office-holders to
serve their term). Opinions published by the Attorney General may be
cited by courts as persuasive authority.
Department of Justice Biennial Report 2007-2008
Executive Programs
79
Of the 23 opinions issued by the Attorney General since January 2007,
the following were of particular interest:
• A person appointed as an unpaid, volunteer investigator by a
district attorney may qualify as a “peace officer” provided that
he or she is assigned to perform investigative duties and
otherwise meets all standards imposed by law. Opinion No.
06-204 (90 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 7 (2007)).
• A sheriff’s gift of an honorary badge to a private citizen violates
California law if: (1) the badge falsely purports to be authorized
or would deceive an ordinary reasonable person into believing
that it is authorized for use by a peace officer; or (2) the badge
indicates membership in an organization whose name would
reasonably be understood to imply that the organization is
composed of law enforcement personnel when, in fact, less
than 80 percent of the members of the organization are law
enforcement personnel, active or retired, and the sheriff has
knowledge of such fact. Opinion No. 06-307 (90
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 57 (2007)).
• The Native American Heritage Commission may
delegate to its executive secretary those powers and
duties that do not require the exercise of the special
judgment and discretion conferred upon the commission
by statute. Such delegable powers include: the
authority to investigate claims of damage or threatened
damage to a Native American sanctified cemetery or of
removal or threatened removal of artifacts from a Native
American grave; to prepare preliminary reports, hold hearings
and make recommended findings subject to the commission’s
review and approval; and to recommend that the commission
bring an action, through the Attorney General, to prevent such
damage or such removal. Opinion No. 07-103
(90 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 89 (2007)).
• The Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs may not deny
an application for licensure or suspend or revoke the license of
an alcoholism or drug abuse treatment facility because the
particular community already has more than a sufficient
number of treatment facilities to meet the local need.
Additionally, a city may not limit the establishment of alcoholism
or drug abuse treatment facilities serving six or fewer persons
because the particular community already has more than a
sufficient number of treatment facilities to meet the local need.
Opinion No. 07-601 (90 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 109 (2007)).
•
Although the issue is not entirely free from doubt, under the
current state of the law, a court could invalidate as contrary to
state law, a city’s compromise settlement of a suit for damages
that was brought by a city council member before his election
Since January 2007, the
Opinion Unit issued 23
formal, written opinions
on behalf of the
Attorney General.
80
to the council, against the city and its employees for alleged
wrongful conduct committed against him as a private citizen.
Opinion No. 07-104 (91 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (2008)).
•
A law enforcement agency must disclose names under the
California Public Records Act of peace officers involved in a
critical incident if it serves the public interest. Opinion No. 07208 (91 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 11 (2008)).
•
Where a county maintains a comprehensive database of
property-related information that contains the home addresses
and telephone numbers of elected or appointed public officials,
but who are not identifiable as such from the data, the law does
not require the county to obtain permission from those officials
before transmitting the database over a limited-access network,
such as an “intranet,” “extranet” or “virtual private network.”
Opinion No. 06-802 (91 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 19 (2008)).
•
A person designated by a regional open space district as a
park ranger has peace officer powers under the terms of the
Penal Code anywhere in the state for the purpose of
performing his or her primary duty, or when making an arrest
involving an immediate danger to person or property or an
escape. Opinion No. 07-302 (91 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. __
(2008)).
This report was edited and produced by Nancy Bell and Susan Feldmann. Special
thanks to James Humes, Christine Gasparac, Marc LeForestier, Sue Johnsrud,
Dane Gillette, Matt Rodriquez, David Chaney, Directors and program managers,
Anna Pozdyn (photos pp. 76, 69), Lauren Feldmann (photos pp. 2, 27), Nick Varanelli,
(photo p. 23), and the DOJ printing and graphics staff.