- CONFIDENTIAL -

Office of Probation and Pretrial Services
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Report on the Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido
to the United States District Court, Northern District of California
December 2010

- CONFIDENTIAL -

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THE REPORT
Purpose
Scope
Authority

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARy

1

BACKGROUND

4

COMPLIANCE WITH POLICy
Policy in Effect During Garrido's Supervision
Policy in Publication 106
Policy in Monograph 109
Policy as Determined by Program Reviews

5

SUPERVISION HISTORy
Review of Chronological Records

14

ASSESSMENT OF SUPERVISION

24

POLICY IN EFFECT AFTER GARRlDO'S PAROLE TERMINATION

26

POLICY IN EFFECT CURRENTLy

27

CURRENT PRACTICES IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PROBATION OFFICE

28

POTENTIAL NATIONAL POLICY CHANGES
Supervision Practices
Search and Seizure
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Time Line of Legal Events Surrounding Phillip Garrido
Appendix B: Federal Statutory Changes Related to Sex Offender Registration
Appendix C: Post-Conviction Supervision Standards, Northern District of California

29

- CONFIDENTIAL -

ABOUT THE REPORT
Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of a review conducted by the AOUSC
pursuant to the authority granted to the AOUSC Director under 18 U.S.c. § 3672. The review
focused on the supervision provided by the United States probation office in the Northern
District of California from the time of Phillip Garrido's release from federal prison in 1988 to the
time his federal parole ended in 1999.
Scope

AOUSC staff reviewed all available case documents, including chronological records made by
the probation officers who supervised Garrido. In many places there were gaps in the record,
making it difficult to determine whether there had been activity during the time of the gaps or if
information had once been in the record and is now missing. The reviewers considered the
infonnation concerning the case in the context of the policies and practices approved by the
Judicial Conference of the United States at the time Garrido was supervised.
Authority

Under 18 U.S.c. § 3672, "The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
or his authorized agent. shall investigate the work of probation officers and make
recommendations concerning the same to the respective judges and shal.l have access to the
records of all probation officers."
The statutory duties of probation officers are set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3603. Policies governing
the work of probation officers, including the supervision of offenders in the community, are
established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

ii

- CONFIDENTIAL -

)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal probation office in the Northern District of California was responsible for the
supervision of Phillip Garrido from December 1988 to June 1999,. when Garrido's supervision
was assumed by the Parole Division of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. The focus of this report is on the time Garrido spent on federal supervision,
which includes June 10, 1991, when II-year old Jaycee Dugard was allegedly kidnaped by
Garrido.
Phillip Garrido's federal parole supervision stemmed from a conviction in United States District
Court for the District of Nevada in 1977, when he was convicted of kidnaping a 25-year-old
woman in South Lake Tahoe, Nevada, and confining her in a storage shed in Reno, Nevada,
where he repeatedly raped her. For the kid!laping. Garrido received a federal sentence of 50
years imprisonrn~nt. For forcible rape, he received a Nevada state sentence of 5 years to life.
In January 1988, after Garrido had served II years in federal prison, the United States Parole
Commission granted him parole, and he was turned over to Nevada prison authorities to begin
his state sentence. In August 1988, Nevada parole authorities released him on lifetime parole
supervision and transferred him back to federal jurisdiction for his return to the community.
After time in a hal fway house, Garrido was released to the supervision of the United States
probation office in the Northern District of California, and lived with his mother at her home in
Antioch, California. He continued to reside at this address and remained under parole
supervision by federal probation officers until the United States Parole Commission terminated
his federal parole in 1999.
The Parole Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation subsequently
assumed lifetime parole supervision of Garrido under terms of an interstate parole compact with
the state of Nevada. Garrido remained under its supervision until the time of his arrest on
August 26, 2009.
Supervision policies specifically aimed at sex offenders were adopted in the federal probation
system in 2003, four years after Garrido's federal supervision ended. At the time of Garrido's
release from prison in 1988, sex offenders represented a very small percentage ofthe supervision
population in the federal system, and Judicial Conference policy at the time did not explicitly
address their supervision. Nonetheless, policy guidance in place during Garrido's period of
supervision required the probation officer to supervise him as a "high risk" offender.
After significant study and review of the relevant available records, this report concludes that the
Federal probation office in the Northern District of California did not follow commonly accepted
supervision practices and failed to adequately supervise Phillip Garrido.
While records indicate that Garrido was correctly categorized as a "high risk" offender, the
probation office failed to supervise him accordingly. Home contacts were rare. Collateral

- CONFIDENTIAL contacts with neighbors and local law enforcement were never done. Frequent positive drug tests
and submission of diluted urine samples were largely ignored. The probation officer appears to
have relied on the offender's therapist for infonnation rather than direct contact with the
offender.
According to records, the probation officer never verified that Garrido had registered as a sex
offender as required by the state of California. The probation officer appeared unconcerned
when Garrido's female coworkers at a nursing home expressed fears about his demeanor. When
the victim of the 1977 kidnaping and rape reported that she may have seen Garrido near her place
of employment, the officer's only action was to verify with Garrido's employer that he was at
work that day. Further, the officer allowed Garrido to take a job as a salesman going door to
door in the community.
There is no record of the probation office infonning Nevada State Probation and Parole of
Garrido's illicit drug use. In fact, the reports that were sent to Nevada typically noted "there have
been no problems up to this point," even following a positive drug test or di luted urine sample.
With one exception, the probation office also failed to infonn the United States Parole
Commission about illicit drug use. That one exception resulted in a brief revocation of parole. a
short period of time in custody, and a period of home confinement.
While the level of federal supervision was clearly substandard, there is no evidence that the
federal probation office would have uncovered the presence of Jaycee Dugard and her children
even if the probation officer had conducted a search of the premises. In fact, a California sex
offender task force searched the house and grounds in July 2008 and failed to find them.
Nevertheless, one may fairly question whether Garrido could have been deterred from the
horrendous acts attributed to him had his federal supervision been conducted properly from the
onset.
The Garrido case is a significant reflection of the deficient practices in the probation office in the
Northern District of California. However, it is not the only one. The office had a track record of
inadequate supervision, and previous reviews of the office have reported serious deficiencies in
operations.
Tn 2000, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) conducted a routine
review of the probation office in the Northern District of California and found the state of
offender supervision to be poor. The AOUSC made a series of recommendations for
improvement. Tn 2006, another AOUSC review team found that none of the recommendations
made in 2000 had been implemented.
In May 2007, the court replaced the chief probation officer with an experienced manager from
another district. The new chief brought in well-qualified managers from other districts to fill the
chief deputy and two assistant deputy positions. The AOUSC provided the new management
team with a summary of areas requiring improvements, including 1) home inspections need to be

2

- CONFIDENTIAL conducted in a timely fashion and upon changes in residence, 2) joint planning between officers
and supervisors should be documented in the chronological entries indicating that case plans
have been submitted and approved, and 3) increased home visits and field contacts should be
required for higher risk offenders.
The new management team retrained all officers and supervisors in Judicial Conference policies
and procedures for supervising offenders in the community. The chief mandated that officers
spend more time in the community. Standards were provided for supervision of high, medium,
and low activity cases. Internal audits were shared with the supervisors and officers. Progress on
implementing the AOUSC reconunendations was a standard agenda item at monthly meetings
with supervising probation officers.
With strong support from the court, the new managers appear tq have made significant progress
in improving the quality of supervision in the district. A follow-up review in December 20 I0
revealed that home inspections are conducted within the required time frame in nearly 90 percent
of cases. Joint planning meetings between officers and supervisors are now documented in 97
percent of case files. Contacts with higher risk offenders in the conununity have more than
doubled, and are now consistent with practices in the Ninth Circuit as a whole.
While all indications are that the probation office in the Northern District of California has
remedied its shortcomings and is under strong and effective management, the AOUSC will
remain in frequent contact with the office.
On a national level, the AOUSC takes seriously its statutory responsibilities to investigate and
report any deficiencies in federal probation offices. It is an important element in assuring
probation officers adequately safeguard their communities and those who live in them. When
matters require national attention, the AOUSC refers them to the Criminal Law Committee of the
Judicial Conference for its consideration. Currently the Committee is reviewing the
recommendations of the ad hoc Sex Offender Management Working Group, which was
appointed by the AOUSC Director. National and regional training of officers will be updated
and expanded and other opportunities to assist probation offices in this crucial area will continue
to be explored, and if beneficial, implemented.

.,

)

3

- CONFIDENTIAL ,~)

BACKGROUND

Phillip Garrido's federal parole supervision stemmed from a conviction in United States District
Court for the District of Nevada. In 1976, at the age of 25, Garrido was arrested for kidnapping
and rape. On March 11, 1977, he was sentenced in the District of Nevada to 50 years
imprisonment for kidnapping (18 U.S.c. § 1201 (a)(1 ». On April 11, 1977, he was sentenced in
the State ofNevada--to a term of 5 years to life, with the possibility for parole--for forcible rape,
to be served concurrently with the federal term.
According to court documents, Garrido approached the victim outside a store on November 22,
J 976, told her his car was disabled, and asked her for a ride. The victim agreed to help him.
Garrido later instructed the victim to tum the vehicle into an empty lot, where he handcuffed her
hands behind her back, and placed a leather strap around her neck and under her knees to keep
her in a ben I-over position and out of sight. Driving for about an hour, Garrido took the victim
to a modi tied storage shed that he maintained in Reno, Nevada. There. over a 6-hour period, he
repeatedly sexually assaulted her. A police officer on routine patrol noticed the car and a broken
lock on the door to the shed and investigated. The police officer arrested Garrido and charged
him with kidnapping and rape.
Garrido admitted at the time of the offense to being under the influence of LSD and stated in the
presentence interview that he was a heavy user of LSD.
At the time ofGarrido's federal sentencing, his criminal history, as outlined in his presentence
investigation report, consisted of drug charges, two rape charges, and a kidnapping charge. On
May 28, 1970, Garrido was charged with Possession of Marijuana and Possession of Dangerous
Restricted Drugs (LSD). Garrido pled guilty to the marijuana charge and served I year
probation; the LSD charge was dismissed. On March 3, 1972, Garrido was charged with
Possession of Marijuana; Visiting a Place Where Drugs are Used. He was subsequently
convicted and served 90 days in the county jail and 3 years probation. Garrido's first rape charge
was on April 14, 1972, in Antioch, California, where he was charged with Contributing to
Overdose; Runaway Juvenile; and Possible Rape. The case was dismissed due to insufficient
evidence.

In a separate and unrelated case, Garrido was charged with rape and kidnapping on December 27,
1976, for a crime that allegedly occurred in EI Dorado County, California, in June 1976. See:
Appendix A, Time Line of Legal Events Surrounding Phillip Garrido.

4

- CONFIDENTIAL -

COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY
Policy in Effect During Garrido's Supervision

At the time of Garrido's release from prison in 1988, policy for the supervision of offenders wascontained in The Supervision Process, Publication 106, which was issued in 1983. Although
Publication 106 did not specifically address the supervision of someone classified as a sex
offender, it gave direction and guidance regarding the level of supervision required for lowactivity and high-activity cases. The level determined the required number of personal contacts
with the offender. The higher the risk, the higher the number of contacts required.. Publication
106 was in effect during Garrido's first 3 years of supervision.
In July 1988, at the recommendation of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference,
the Director of the AOUSC appointed a supervision task force to examine supervision practices
and make recommendations for improvement. The product of the task force's efforts became
known as "enhanced supervision" and was published in 1991 as The Supervision ofFederal
Offenders, Monograph 109. The 1991 version of Monograph 109 contained the policies in effect
for the remainder of Garrido's federal parole tem1. An updated Monograph 109 was approved in
2003. long after Garrido's term of federal supervision ended.
The goal of the 1991 version of Monograph 109 was to move away from merely "counting
contacts" and to promote more purposeful supervision based on the assessment of each
individual case. The probation officer was to tailor the case plan for each offender according to
individual circumstances. The monograph described supervision activities aimed at controlling
risk by detecting misbehavior. Such "risk control activities" focused on the offender's
compliance with mandatory conditions that prohibit new criminal violations and possession of
controlled substances and fireanns. Conducting plain-view searches and seizures, maintaining
law enforcement liaisons in the community, and detecting substance abuse through testing were
included as risk control activities.
The following sections highlight some of the supervision policies contained in Publication 106
and Monograph 109 and provide an assessment of the Northern District of California's
supervision of Garrido. A more detailed description of Garrido' s supervision is presented in the
section titled "Supervision History."
Policy in Publication 106

The following information addresses aspects of the supervision process and how policy set forth
in The Supervision Process, Publication 106. applied to each aspect. The italicized language
beneath each section describes whether the probation office applied the policy in the case of
Phillip Garrido (the parolee) during the period after his release from prison in 1988 through
1991, when Publication 106 was superceded Monograph 109.

5

- CONFIDENTIAL -

:_

Initial Classification

Publication 106 outlined the steps the probation officer was to take to classify an offender as low
activity or high activity and to determine the offender's classification using the appropriate
predictive device. The policy explained that "[t]wo actuarial devices are used in the system-the
Risk Prediction Scale (RPS-80), for persons on probation, and the Salient Factor Score (SFS-8 t),
for persons on parole" (Ch. II, p. 4).
The parolee's SFS-81 score was 6, which would have placed him in the high-activity
supervision level.

Publication 106 set the high-activity level of supervision as "[f]rom one personal contact per
month to any greater number necessary to meet supervision objectives" and also required
collateral contacts (Ch. II, p. 4). As the policy stated. "During the initial 6 months of supervision.
the supervision level is not to be less than the predictive device indicates" (Ch. II. p. 10). It told
officers to "direct the greater proportion of their efforts toward persons in (he high activity
supervision level" (Ch. II, pp. 10-11).
The parolee 's supervision during the first 6 months was not in accordance with
Publication 106. The minimum contact standards calledfor six personal contacts during
that time. The parolee was seen in the office once and at the job site once. Moreover. the
initial home visit was not conducted until June 20, 1989. 6 months after supervision
began.

Publication t 06 required officers to complete Form PROS 42, "Classification and Initial
Supervision Plan," "immediately upon receipt of a person for supervision and, in any event, no
later than 30 days thereafter" (Ch. II, p. 4).
The parolee 's initial supervision plan was not completed within established time frames.
but 8 months after supervision began. The Form PROB 42 was dated August 10. 1989.

Publication 106 instructed officers to conduct the "Case Review" every 6 months (Ch. II, p. 4).
Although the "Classification and Initial Supervision Plan "for the parolee was completed
late, case reviews were scheduled at 6-month intervals and completed within acceptable
time frames.
The Supervision Plan

Publication 106 gave officers guidance for supervision planning through identi fying supervision
problems and set1ing objectives to address them. The policy explained that "[s]ound practice
calls for a mixture of office, community, and home visits with offenders, supported by collateral
contact with family, employer, police, and social agencies" (Ch. II, p. 12). It cautioned that
"[a]lthough community resources may be used to address many problems, the probation officer
may not delegate total responsibility for supervision of the offender to any other agency"
(Ch. II, p. 13).
6

- CONFIDENTIAL -

.t

During the course o/the parolee's supervision, the probation officer had more contact
with the treatment provider than with the parolee directly, despite concerns about his
conduct at work, drug use, and dilution o/urine specimens. (See the "Supervision
History" section 0/ this report for more in/ormation.)
Treatment

According to Publication I06, to ensure a successful treatment referral, "the probation officer
must stay involved in the process and maintain frequent (daily if necessary) contact with both the
agency and the offender" (Ch. III, pp. 23-24). The policy further stated that "the importance of
face-to-face contact with agency personnel cannot be overemphasized" (Ch. III, p. 24).
The probation officer maintained regular contact with the therapist throughout the
parolee's supervision.
.

Publication 106 explained that "ra] phased urine collection program has been established for all
drug dependant persons under supervision" (Ch. V, p. 33) and explained the collection and
testing process. The policy set the following minimum guidelines for the three phases: Phase
I-six collections monthly; Phase II-four collections monthly; and Phase III-two collections
monthly.
The parolee submilled to urine testing throughout the period 0/ supervision, testing
positive/or illicit substances/our times (9-22-89, 10-10-89,8-6-90 and 7-26-93.)
Special Conditions

Publication 106 described special conditions of supervision as "imposed for a prescribed
purpose, tailored to the specific circumstances or problems of the offender" (Ch. III, p. 16).
The parolee was released under the/ollowing special conditions o/parole:
I) You shall participate as instructed by your probation officer in a program approved by
the Parole Commission/or treatment o/narcotic addiction or drug dependency, which
may include testing and examination to determine ifyou have reverted to the use 0/
drugs; 2) You shall participate in an inpatient or outpatient mental health program as
directed by your probation officer; and 3) You shall reside in and participate in a
program o/the Community Treatment Center as instructed until discharge by the Center
director, but no later than 120 days from admission.

Although Publication 106 addressed search and seizure, it allowed officers to use such tools only
under limited circumstances, deeming searches "primarily the responsibility of law enforcement
officers acting procedurally as they would in any criminal investigation" (Ch. III, p. 17).
7

- CONFIDENTIAL -

The policy stated, "Probation officers should only search in the rare circumstance when there is
no alternative" (Ch. Ill, p. 17). (Note: In addition to guidance provided by Publication 106,
policy approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States discouraged officers from
conducting any type of search of an offender.)
The Parole Commission did not impose a search condition when the parolee was
released on parole. nor did the probation officer request modification ojthe conditions to
add a search condition.

Publication 106 stated that officers "may find it necessary to request a special condition of
probation or parole restricting an offender's employment ... in the interest of protecting the
public from a 'reasonably foreseeable' risk of physical or financial hann to a specific third party
or parties" (Ch. III. p. 17), The policy specifically gave as an example of employment that should
be precluded "all offender with a violent sexual background working in an apartment complex as
a maintenance person" (Ch. III, p. 18).
The probation officer jailed to adequately restrict or monitor the parolee's employment.
eren when the parolee's job required him to go door to door in the community
ul1supen'ised. Although the officer directed the parolee to disclose his sexual assaultive
background to his employer. the officer did not verify with the employer that the parolee
made such disclosure.
Supervisory Involvement in the Supervision Process

Publication 106 stressed the importance of supervisor involvement in the supervision process,
stating that ';[r]esponsibility and accountability for the work are shared jointly by the probation
officer and the supervisor" (Ch. VI, p. 37). The policy stated, "The supervisor must be
thoroughly familiar with the record keeping requirements as defined in the Probation Manual and
must review all case files periodically to insure compliance with these requirements"
(Ch. IV, p. 38).
Although the case file indicated that the supervisor reviewed the parolee's case file, the
file did not document whether the supervisor offered any support or guidance as to
corrective action.

According to Publication 106, "[t]he probation officer has a great deal of discretionary authority
in making decisions which significantly affect offenders and the community. By practice, these
difficult decisions are made with the input of others through methods such as case staffing or
through individual consultation with the supervisor" (Ch. VI, p. 39). The policy stated, "Any
actions decided upon are to be recorded in the case file and both the supervisor and officer are
responsible to see that decisions are implemented" (Ch. IV, p. 39).

8

- CONFIDENTIAL -

Aside from the case plans, the chronological record in the parolee's case lacked
documentation ofongoing staffing or consultation between the probation officer and the
supervisor.
Supervision Activity Records

Publication 106 stated, "Complete and accurate records of supervision activity are essential to the
effective operation of the probation system" (Ch. II, p. 14). According to the policy, "[t]he
instrument used to document supervision activities is the chronological record" (Ch. II, p. 14).
The chronological records were not complete. It is impossible to ascertain whether
entries were made and now are missing or whether they were never entered into the
record at all.

Policy in Monograph 109

In 1991, The Supervision of Federal Offenders, Monograph 109, replaced Publication 106 as the
primary policy document for supervising offenders. The following infonnation addresses aspects
of the supervision process, how policy set forth in Monograph 109 applied to each aspect, and
whether the probation office applied the policy in the case of Phillip Garrido (the parolee).
Initial Assessment Period and Review Process

Monograph 109 stated, "The assessment period shall not exceed 60 days and will vary in
duration depending on the circumstances of a particular case" (Ch.IlI, p. 14).
The parolee's initial supervision plan was developed under PublicatioYJ 106. but his
parole supervision was interrupted when the probation office requested a warrant. which
was issued by the Us. Parole Commission in March 1993. When the parolee 's
supervision recommenced on September 6. 1993. the probation officer developed a new
supervision plan under Monograph 109, but did not follow policy in doing so. The officer
completed the plan on March 26, 1994, 6 months after parole had recommenced.

According to Monograph 109, "[t]he 6-month case review affords the officer and the supervisor
an opportunity to examine the offender's progress and response to the supervision program and
to evaluate the adequacy of the existing plan" (Ch. III, p. 20). The policy explained that "[tJhe
purpose of this process is to establish a supervision plan for the next 6 months which is based on
a comprehensive analysis of the previous 6 months' experience" (Ch. III, pp. 20-21).
Although the probation officer completed and submitted the parolee 's 6-month reviews
within acceptable time frames. the plans rarely indicated any need to modify supervision
or risk control strategies despite the parolee's changes in behavior.

9

- CONFIDENTIAL -

Supervision Strategies

Monograph 109 advised that "[s]upervision strategies related to risk control will require a great
deal of direct contact with the offender and others who have information about the offender's
conduct" (Ch. III. p. 19). The policy stated, "Although the case plan does not provide 'Contact
with the Offender' as a supervision activity, such contacts are implicit in such goal-directed
strategies as 'On-Site Examination of Living Situation ... ,,, (Ch. III, pp. 19-20).
Although the monograph presented contact with the offender as an inherent supervision
strategy and the record identified the parolee as high risk and a danger to the
community, the supervision strategies selected in this case were inconsistent with
monograph guidance and with the parolee's risk level.
Supervision Process Implementation

Monograph 109 stated, "The probation officer's responsibility to enforce conditions of
supervision is derived from his or her legal duty to supervise and execute the sentence imposed
by the court" (Ch. IV, p. 25). The policy explained that Title 18 V.S.c. § 3603, the legal
authority for the supervision of federal offenders, sets forth the framework for meeting the three
objectives of effective supervision--" ... execution of the sentence, . , . reduction of risk to the
community, and ... correctional treatment"--providing in part that the probation officer shall
"keep informed concerning the compliance with any condition of supervision and report thereon
to the court or Parole Commission; ... keep informed as to the conduct and condition of a person
under supervision and report his or her conduct and condition to the sentencing court or Parole
Commission; ... and keep a record of the officerfs work" (Ch, IV, p. 25).
The probation officer failed to implement risk control activities despite the parolee's
deteriorating conduct, which included illicit drug use. The officer relied on the therapist
to keep apprised ofthe parolee's adjustment and response to supervision. The record
noted that the parolee used drugs, but the officer did not see him in person until several
months after becoming aware a/the drug use.
Risk Control Activities

Conducting Search and Seizure. In addressing search and seizure, Monograph 109 stated, "Any
search by the officer must be restricted to areas of access to the offender and conducted during
daylight hours unless good cause is given" (Ch. IV, p. 27).
The Parole Commission did not impose a search condition when the parolee was
released, nor did the probation officer ever request a modification ofthe parolee's
conditions to add a search condition.

10

- CONFIDENTIAL -

)

Maintaining Law Enforcement Liaison. According to Monograph 109, "[t]he nature and
frequency of contacts with law enforcement will vary depending upon the risk posed by the
offender and the supervision issues identified" (Ch. IV, p. 27). The policy explained that "[wJhen
the actuarial score and/or the offender's criminal history (including a history of violence, similar
criminal activity, or criminal associations) has identified risk as an issue of concern, the officer
should make frequent contact with those law enforcement agencies that may have infonnation
about the activities of the offender" (Ch. IV, p. 27).
Despite the risk the parolee posed, the probation officer failed to make law enforcement
contacts in the community. The only officer-initiated law enforcement contacts
documented in the record were in November 1998 (11-16 and 11-18).

Detecting Drug Abuse. Monograph 109 described urinalysis and collateral contacts as useful
means to detect drug use. It stated. "Since there is a high correlation between drug abuse and
criminal activity, the officer should make ongoing efforts to detect drug use through urinalysis,"
(Ch. IV, p. 28).
The parolee submilled to urine testing throughout the period ofsupervision, testing
positive for illicit substances four times and providing three diluted urine specimens.

Assessing Third-Party Risk. Monograph 109 stated, "When the probation officer detennines that
the offender poses a 'reasonably foreseeable' risk of physical or financial hann to a specific third
party or parties, he or she should increase risk control supervision ..." (Ch. IV, p. 29).
Despite the parolee 'sincreasedrisk and danger to the community, as documented in the
chronological record, the probation officer failed to increase the level ofsupervision or
implement any additional risk-control strategies.

Referring for Treatment. Monograph 109 gave guidance for assessing which treatment agency is
appropriate, stating that "[t]he officer should ascertain if the agency specializes in the behavior to
be treated (e.g. sexual deviancy) and whether the agency has expertise in working with offenders
who are required to submit to treatment" (Ch. IV, p. 32). To ensure a successful referral,
Monograph 109 noted,"Collateral contacts with the treatment agency are necessary to monitor
the offender's compliance with the program ..." (Ch. IV, p. 32).
The probation officer maintained contact with the therapist, but appears to have
abdicated control ofthe parolee's supervision 10 the therapist and therefore did not
comply with policy.
Supervision Contacts

Monograph 109 described the purpose of supervision contacts as "enforcing conditions,
controlling risk, and/or providing correctional treatment" (Ch. IV, p. 34). The policy explained
II

- CONFIDENTIAL that "[t]he frequency, place, and nature of the contacts, as well as which persons are to be
contacted, will be detennined by the plan and directly related to identified supervision issues"
(Ch. IV, p. 34). Monograph 109 presented the officer's role in community supervision not as
passive and relying upon only what the offender reports, but as dynamic and relying upon the
officer proactively making contact in the community. The policy stated, "Field supervision
contacts with the offender and others are essential for the officer to fulfill his or her statutory
requirement to maintain awareness of the offender's conduct and condition" (Ch. IV, p. 34),
Collateral contacts (such as those with law enforcement and employers) were not
regularly or consistently reported in the chronological record. The probation officer's
contacts consisted ofoffice visits with the parolee. the parolee's selfreports, contact with
the parolee's wife with the parolee present, and contacts with the therapist. These
contacts failed to address the parolee's increased risk.
Case kfanagement

Monograph 109 stressed the importance of supervision case records. stating that "[c]omplete and
accurate records of supervision activity are essential to ensure that the activities undertaken are
consistent with those outlined in the supervision plan" (Ch. IV, p. 34). The policy explained that
"[e]ach entry should be a brief, concise statement reflecting the supervision issue(s) addressed,
action taken by the officer. and whether the offender's progress in resolving the issue(s) is
satisfactory or unsatisfactory" (Ch. IV, p. 34). It further noted that "the chronological records
should contain the date, place, and nature of contacts made with the offender and others" (Ch. IV,
p.34).
The chronological record ofthe parolee's supervision did not consistently show that the
requirements set forth in Monograph 109 were followed.

Policy as Determined by Program Reviews
In recent years - after the time of Garrido's federal supervision - the AOUSC conducted reviews
of the probation office in the Northern District ofCalifomia. Thlee reviews, conducted by review
teams in October 2000, January 2006, and October 2007, found the quality of offender
supervision to be poor. (See: Program Review Report for the Northern District of California United States Probation Office, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, January 200 1; Program
Review Report for the Northern District of California . United States Probation Office,
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, February 2006; and Program Review Report for the
Northern District of California - United States Probation Office, Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, December 2007.)
The review conducted in October 2000 revealed that the probation office needed to make
significant improvements in post-conviction supervision, citing deficiencies in areas including
initial case plarming, court-ordered sanctions, risk control, correctional treatment, and quality
control. Recommendations for corrective actions were sent to the chief probation officer.

J2

- CONFIDENTIAL -

--

The January 2006 review revealed that there had been no attempts to implement the earlier
recommendations, and that the quality of supervision remained poor. The AOUSC review team
reported its finding to the court, which made a decision to remove the chief probation officer.
In May 2007, the court replaced the chief probation officer with an experienced manager from
another district. The new chief brought in well-qualified managers from other districts to fill the
chief deputy and two assistant deputy positions. The AOUSC provided the new management
team with a summary of areas requiring improvements, including I) home inspections need to be
conducted in a timely fashion and upon changes in residence, 2) joint staffings between officers
and supervisors should be documented in the chronological entries indicating that case plans
have been submitted and approved, and 3) increased home visits and field contacts should be
required for higher risk offenders.
The new management team retrained all officers and supervisors in Judicial Conference policies
and procedures for supervising offenders in the community. The chief mandated that officers
spend more time in the community. Progress on implementing the AOUSC recommendations
was a standard agenda item at monthly meetings with supervising probation officers. Standards
were provided for supervision of high. medium. and low activity cases. For high risk cases, such
as sex offenders, active gang members, and offenders with severe mental health or substance
abuse problems, 6 personal or collateral contacts are required in the first 6 months, at least four
in the field.
With strong support from the court, the new managers appear to have made significant progress
in improving the quality of supervision in the district. A follow-up review in December 20 I0
revealed that home inspections are conducted within the required time frame in nearly 90 percent
of cases. Joint staffings between officers and supervisors are now documented in 97 percent of
case files. Contacts with higher risk offenders in the community have more than doubled, and
are now consistent with practices in the Ninth Circuit as a whole.

13

- CONFIDENTIAL SUPERVISION HISTORY
Review of Chronological Records

The following infonnation presents Garrido's supervision history by year. It is based on a review
of the chronological entries made by the officers who supervised Garrido. Unless noted in the
body of the paragraph, the date of the chronological entry appears in parentheses at the end of the
summary. Particularly signi ficant events are noted in bold.
1988

The parolee was transferred from the State of Nevada to a community treatment center (eTC) in
Oakland, California, to transition him into the community where he would reside with his mother
and wife. The probation officer conducted pre-release planning with the parolee and the eTe
staff. The pre-release planning commenced in August and concluded upon the parolee's release
in December.
While residing at the CTC the parolee gained employment at a nursing horne and visited his
proposed residence. Conversations between the eTe counselor and the probation officer
described the parolee as a "time bomb" and indicated that close monitoring of the parolee was
needed (10-14 & 10-24).
The chronological record did not indicate that the officer took any action
regarding these concerns.

Local law enforcement contacted the probation office, questioning the parolee's employment at a
nursing home. The officer advised that the nursing home was aware of the parolee's history as
the officer had spoken with the nursing home directly on 9-12 (10-5).
Nevada State Parole and Probation contacted the probation office requesting periodic reports on
the parolee's progress and supervision status (10-18). The probation officer responded in a report
sent on 11-26, advising that the eTe staff had recommended close monitoring of the case and
that the probation office would follow the recommendation.
The probation office went to the parolee's mother's home on 11-8. but no one was home. The
probation officer planned a home visit with the parolee's mother for 11-14.
The chronological record contained no documentation that the home visit was
completed.

The victim of the 1976 kidnapping and rape contacted the probation office to inquire about the
parolee's status. She reported that she had seen someone hanging around her office building and
thought it might have been the parolee. The probation officer contacted the parolee's employer
and verified that the parolee had been at work at the time the victim had seen someone (11-18).
The officer and treatment center counselor discussed the possibility of increasing monitoring.
14

- CONFIDENTIAL The counselor suggested placing the parolee on electronic monitoring after he left the treatment
center, but--as indicated in a chronological record--the probation officer thought it would be "too
much of a hassle based on the hysteria or concerns of the victim when all indications point to the
fact that subject was nowhere near the victim's workplace..." (11-19).
The probation office contacted the parolee's psychiatrist to discuss the parolee's treatment.
According to the record, the psychiatrist described the parolee as "like a pot boiling with no
outlet valve." The psychiatrist recommended ongoing counseling after the parolee's discharge
.from the treatment facility. The probation office concurred with the recommendation (12-13).
The parolee completed his transition from the CTC and was paroled on 12-16 with the following
special conditions:
I)

2)
3)

You shall participate as instructed by your probation officer in a program
approved by the Parole Commission for treatment of narcotic addiction or drug
dependency, which may include testing and examination to detennine if you have
reverted to the use of drugs;
You shall participate in an inpatient or outpatient mental health program as
directed by your probation officer; and
You shall reside in and participate in a program of the Community Treatment
Center as instructed until discharge by the Center Director, but no later than 120
days from admission. The parolee was released to reside with his wife and mother
in Antioch, California.

There was no record ofofficer-initiated contacts with law enforcement in 1988
and no verification ofsex offender registration.
1989

The parolee reported to the probation office on 2-24. It is noted that the parolee is very happy
with adjustment at home and on the job (2-24).
Counseling was set up with a new therapist upon the parolee's release from the facility. The
parolee commenced counseling in February 1989 (2-24).
Over the first 6 months of supervision, the probation officer saw the parolee once in the office,
once at the job site, and conducted the initial home visit on 6-20. During the home visit, the
officer met with the parolee's mother and the parolee.
The parolee's risk level as shown in the SFS-81 was a 6. which would have placed
him in the high-activity supervision level. The minimum contact standards called
for six personal contacts during that time.

15

- CONFIDENTIAL The parolee was actively participating in mental health treatment. The officer staffed the
parolee's case with the therapist twice in the initial 6 months of supervision (4-24 & 6-7).
Over the second 6 months of supervision, the officer had ongoing contact with the treatment
provider and, during staffings on 7-18 and 8-18, documented concern that the parolee possibly
was taking medication that was not prescribed for him. The officer reported on 7-18 that the
parolee had reported that he was taking Mellaril for his migraines and Tylenol with codeine for a
foot injury. The parolee infonned the therapist that he was seeing a private doctor while also
seeing another doctor at Kaiser for his migraines. The officer noted concerns that the parolee
may have been obtaining non-prescribed medications at the nursing home where he was
employed. The therapist agreed to set up a reevaluation with a psychiatrist (7-18).
There was no documentation that the probation officer/ollowed up on the
concerns that the parolee was taking medications that were not prescribedfor
him.

The officer completed and submitted the initial case plan on 8-10. The case plan indicated that
the parolee had a Salient Factor Score of 6. The case plan stated that the officer would have
monthly contact with the parolee and the service provider. It also indicated that the parolee
would always be a risk to third parties.
The parolee was seen by a psychiatrist. The officer noted that the parolee may need medication
and that the therapist's treatment approach was correct (8-10). The officer received information
regarding the appointment through the therapist, not from the psychiatrist directly.
During an office visit on 8-14, the officer told the parolee about the State of California's
requirement for sex offender registration. See: Appendix B, Federal Statutory Changes Related
to Sex Offender Registration.
The chronological record contained no further information as to whether or not
the parolee complied with this requirement. There was no documentatiohto
indicate that the officer verified the parolee's sex offender registration.

The officer conducted a home visit on 8-16-89 and saw the parolee and his mother. The parolee
gave the probation officer the name of his private doctor.
The parolee submitted two diluted specimens in August 1989. Staffing with the therapist
indicated that she believed the parolee "is close to going off' (8-23).
The probation officer did not have personal contact with the parolee until Dec.i.

The officer sent a request for psychiatric and medical records to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for
further information regarding the parolee's medications for migraine headaches and psychiatric
care (8-23).

16

- CONFIDENTIAL -

The officer followed up with the parolee's employer regarding the accusation of sexual
harassment. The employer advised the officer that three females had reported that they were
nervous around the parolee and that the parolee three times had approached females about going
out with him. No physical contact had been reported. The employer advised that she wanted to
keep the parolee employed (9-28).
The officer maintained ongoing contact with the parolee's therapist during September and
October 1989. The therapist reported to the officer that the parolee had tested positive for speed
[methamphetamine] on 9-22 and had admitted to using it for about a month. He also had told the
therapist that he had used marijuana since his release and admitted to flushing his system (10-5).
The therapist reported an additional positive test for speed on 10-10, but advised that she
believed that since everything was coming out in the open, a positive outcome of continued
treatment could be expected (10-10).
Despite the issues and concerns at the parolee's place ofemployment, the diluted
urine specimens, and the t\1l0 positive test results, there was no information in the
records that the probation officer saw the parolee from 8-16-89 to 12-/-89.
Furthermore, the file contained no documentation to indicate that the officer
reported the violations to the Parole Commission.

The officer conducted a home visit on 12-1-89, but no specific information about the visit was
noted in the chronological entry.
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in 1989 and no
verification ofsex offender registration.
1990

The probation officer continued ongoing contact with the therapist. The officerand the therapist
again discussed a problem with a female at the parolee'S place of employment. The therapist
relayed to the officer that the parolee had been giving unwanted attention to another female and
that the female subsequently quit (1-12). The officer attempted to contact the parolee on 1-24 at
work and at home but made no direct contact.
The parolee reported to the probation office on 2-5. The parolee advised that he was going to
look for other employment as he was tired of working with all women. He advised that
everything else was going well (2-5).
The probation officer submitted an updated case plan on 2-7, documenting that the parolee
remained on high-activity supervision. The case plan highlighted three drug positives, none of
which were reported to the Parole Commission. The case plan also documented that the
probation officer had told the parolee to register as a sex offender.
The parolee was seen in the office in February and told the probation officer that he was training
to sell water purifiers and would be selling this product in people's homes (2-22).

17

- CONFIDENTIAL The chronological record made no menlion ofany concerns regarding
foreseeable Ihird-party risk.

During the March office visit the officer asked if the parolee had registered with the state. The
parolee told the officer that he had registered (3-2).
Allhough Ihe officer direcled Ihe parolee 10 regisler as a sex offender, Ihere was
no documenlalion Ihallhe officer verified Ihallhe parolee complied.

The officer directed the parolee to notify his new employer about his rape and kidnaping
conviction by 3-9 (3-2).
There was no follow-up chronological enlry indicaling Ihallhe officer verified
Ihallhe parolee complied.
There was no documenlalion ofconlacl from April-June /990.

In July 1990, the officer held a meeting with the therapist and the parolee, and decreased the
parolee's urine specimens to weekly (Phase II) (7-10).
In a telephone contact, the parolee told the officer that he had taken a job selling products doorto-door. The parolee reported that he had told his employer about his conviction (8-13).
The record conlained no documenlalion regarding Ihe potenlial risk related 10
Ihis kind ofemploymenl and no verificalion Ihallhe employer knew about the
parolee's offense.

The therapist reported to the probation officer that the parolee tested positive for speed
[methamphetamine] on 8-6. The officer increased the parolee's drug-testing requirements to six
specimens per month (Phase 1) (8-15). The officer discussed the case in detail with the therapist
in August, highlighting the issue of drug use and the danger the parolee presented to the
community (8-22).
There was no documented change in supervision aClivities relaled 10 Ihe parolee's
drug use or Ihe concern about Ihe danger he presenled 10 Ihe community.

The paro lee's previous supervisor from the nursing home reported that the parolee had been
contacting nursing home employees looking for drugs (11-2).
There was no documenledfollow-up by Ihe officer wilh Ihe parolee.

According to the case plans contained in the file, the probation officer submitted a case plan on
J 2-5-90, indicating that the last personal contact was 8-13-90, that the last home visit was 12-189, and that the parolee posed no third-party risk ifhe was in counseling and taking his
medication. The supervisor responded that the parolee needed to be seen more frequently (12-5).
18

- CONFIDENTIAL -

I

The chronological record showed no additional case staffings or follow-up by the
officer or the supervisor to address the supervisor's comment in the case plan that
the parolee needed to be seen more frequently. There was no change in
supervision activity.
The probation officer had no face-to-face contact with the parolee from July to
December /990. Information about the parolee 's status. drug use, and
adjustment was from the therapist and not through the officer's direct contact
with the parolee.
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in 1990 and no
verification ofsex offender registration.

1991
In January 1991, the supervision of the parolee was transferred to a different probation officer.
The case transfer summary highlighted that the case required high-activity supervision, that the
parolee was to be seen monthly, and that drug use was a danger for the parolee.
Commencing with an office visit on 1-30, the probation officer directed the parolee to report
weekly in person. The parolee began reporting more frequently and was seen in the office twice
in February (2-6 and 2-15) and once in March (3-5) and had telephone contact with the officer in
April (4-23).
During the April telephone contact, the parolee remarked that he was anxious for the officer to
conduct a home visit so that he could show the officer his new recording studio (4-23).
The officer conducted a home visit on 5-15. The parolee and his wife were both present and took
the officer on a tour of the home, including the recording studio. The officer documented that
"everything looks ok for the present."
The officer's contact with the therapist remained consistent, with no issues reported during
contacts in February, April, June, and August. The parolee was seeing the therapist weekly.
June 10, 1991 - Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped.

The officer met with the parolee in the office in June (6-19), July (7-24), August (8-7), October
(10-3), and November (11-5). During the office visit in August, the parolee reported that his
wife had been pregnant and had opted to have an abortion (8-7).
There was no indication in the record that the officer discussed this situation with
the therapist on 8-/4, and there was no further mention ofan abortion.

Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee (11-21). The probation officer responded with a report advising that the parolee
remained under the supervision of the office and "there have been no problems up to this point"
(12-3).
19

- CONFIDENTIAL The report failed to provide information about the parolee's noncompliance and
drug use.

The officer conducted a home visit on 12-13. The home visit was documented as "short" since
the parolee was taking his wife to work. The officer noted that the wife was "as cheerful as
ever."
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in /99/ and no
verification ofsex offender registration.
1992

The parolee reported for an office visit on 2- 7 with no issues, but a staffing with the therapist on
the same day revealed real concerns regarding the parolee's demeanor. The therapist scheduled a
reevaluation with the psychiatrist for a review of the parolee's medications.
There was no documentation regarding the psychiatric evaluation. Further,
there lI'as no report ofany activity for more than /0 months (3-4-92 to /-/5-93).

Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee ( I0-20). The probation officer responded with a report advising that the parolee
remained under the supervision of the office and stating, "He has been cooperating with our
office with no major problems. He is employed with his mother, who runs a real estate office in
Antioch, California. He is seen regularly by a mental health therapist and is on medication" (116).

There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in /992 and no
verification ofsex offender registration.
1993

The parolee reported for office visits on 1-15 and 1-27, indicating that everything was the same.
The parolee began missing appointments with the officer and the therapist. The officer attempted
home visits on 2-11 and 2-23, neither of which resulted in contact with the parolee.
The officer held a meeting with the parolee and the therapist on 3-1 regarding the parolee's
compliance. The officer directed the parolee to report every other week commencing 3-10 (3-1).

March 18, 1993 - The U.S. Parole Commission issued a warrant. The petition alleged that
the parolee had failed to report to the probation officer as directed and had failed to report
to the drug counselor for aftercare and submission to urine testing.
April I, 1993 - The parolee was arrested

The Parole Commission placed the parolee on electronic monitoring. The parolee's electronic
monitoring was from 5-10 to 9-6, with a third-party independent contractor, through the Federal
Bureau of Prisons. All noncompliance regarding the electronic monitoring was responded to by
the third-party contractor. The contractor provided a progress report from 5-10 to 7-10, outlining
20

- CONFIDENTIAL -

:1

the parolee's overall progress during the reporting period. The report advised that the parolee
had no problems except a missed office appointment on 6-3.
The file contained no further reports for the remainder ofthe parolee's electronic
monitoring period.

On 7-28, the probation officer noted concern that "we are losing this guy" and that the parolee
again was having trouble with diluted drug tests, possible use of illegal substances, and not
taking his prescribed medications, The officer noted that a violation was in order and that the
potential danger to the community was high.
No follow-up with the Parole Commission regarding these concerns was
indicated in the file.
The record indicated that the supervising officer was changed at some point in
July or August 1993.

The new supervising officer confronted the parolee in the office about the parolee's drug use and
positive test for methamphetamine on 7-26. The officer noted a problem locating the complete
file on the parolee and stated that he was not sure if the parolee had tested positive previously
and that he would make a determination regarding a violation after he received the past file
information. The officer admonished the parolee for his drug use (8-11).
September 6, 1993 - The Notice of Release and Arrival was issued by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.
On 9-6. the parolee was releasedfrom the Federal Bureau ofPrisons supervision
and placed on parole supervision with the federal probation office in the Northern
District ofCalifornia.

The officer had direct office contact with the parolee once in August (8-25) and once in
September (9-10).

There was no indication that the officer had contact with the parolee from
October-December 1993, despite the concerns previously noted in theftle.
There was no documentation of contacts with law enforcement in 1993. no home
inspection. and no verification ofsex offender registration.

1994
The record did not indicate that the officer had any contact with the parolee in
January or February. The probation office had no direct contact with the parolee
for 5 months (October 1993-February 1994).

The parolee reported to the probation office on 3-16, stating that he had been experiencing side
effects with lithium and was now taking Zoloft. He was actively under the care of a psychiatrist.

21

- CONFIDENTIAL The officer stated in the file that he would be seeing the parolee biweekly (3-16).
The record made no earlier mention ofthe parolee's medication changes or the
reasons for the medications.

Over the next 8 months the officer saw the parolee six times in the probation office (3-28, 5-16,
6-6,7-6,9-7, and 10-26).
There were two contacts with the therapist in 1994 (4-19 and 12-13). All progress reports were
positive. The therapist related the infonnation about medications to the probation officer. The
therapist reported that the parolee was taken off lithium but was still on other medications (4-19).
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in 199-1, no home
inspection. and no verification ofsex offender registration.

1995

The parolee visited the probation office twice in January (J -4 and J -25) and reported that things
were going well.
There I'\las no contact documented in February-April.

The officer attempted a home visit and an employment contact on 5-2; however, no contact was
made with the parolee. Following the attempted home visit, the probation officer called and
scheduled a visit for 5-4. During the home visit on 5-4, the officer documented that he
"inspected the residence and found nothing out of the ordinary." The officer also noted that the
parolee was taking Cynex for attention deficit disorder and had continued to see his therapist.
Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee (5-26). The probation officer responded with a report advising that the parolee remained
under the supervision of the office and "has been compliant thus far." The report stated, "The
subject is seen on a bimonthly basis by this officer and has posed no problems thus far" (6-6).
There was no mention ofthe parolee 's noncompliance or drug use in the report
provided to Nevada State Parole and Probation.

Over the next 7 months the officer saw the parolee three times in the office (7-26, 9-20, and 1219) and once at home (9-29) with nothing unusual documented. The probation officer attempted
to see the parolee at home on 11-29; however, no one was home (11-29).
The parolee's counseling was tenninated on 9-25. The documt:ntation stated that the therapist
believed the parolee was stable and not a danger to the community.
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in J995, no home
inspection. and no verification ofsex offender registration.

22

- CONFIDENTIAL -

I

1996
Over the next year of supervision, the officer saw the parolee at the office three times (4.4, 7-12,
and 11-12) and at his home on 2-6. During the home visit, the officer noted that he inspected the
residence with "no contraband observed."
Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee (2-27). The probation officer responded to the report advising that the parolee remained
under the supervision of the office and "has posed no problems thus far ... " The letter further
advised that the parolee had been seeing a therapist and that on 9-25 the therapist had stated, "I
do not feel he is a danger to the community." The letter advised that the parolee was taking
2010ft and Cylert to stabilize his mood swings and was seeing a psychiatrist monthly. The letter
further stated the officer was seeing the parolee approximately every 2 to 3 months (3-5).
On 7-12 the officer noted that the parolee was doing well and that the officer had moved the
parolee to quarterly reporting. The parolee signed an authorization for release of infonnation to
allow the officer to talk to the psychiatrist. The parolee provided copies of prescriptions for
loloft and Dexedrine (11-11),
There was no documentation ofcontacts with law enforcement in 1996. no home
inspection, and no verification ofsex offender registration.

1997
The officer conducted a home visit on 5-3 and reported nothing unusual. The officer noted that
the parolee had five pit bull dogs. Another home visit was conducted more than 6 months later
on 11-16.. The officer then noted that the parolee would only be seen as needed.
Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee (3-4).
There was no documentation that the probation officer responded to the request
from Nevada.

In November 1997. the probation officer requested an evaluation by the parolee's treating
psychiatrist. The psychiatrist provided a hand-written note stating, "His prognosis is excellent ...
r do not suspect he wi II ever be at risk for violence."
There was no documentalion in thejile to indicate any activily by the probation
officer from November 1997 to August 1998. There was no documentation ofcontacts with law
enforcement in 1997, no home inspection, and no verification ofsex offender registration.

1998
The officer attempted home visits on 6-24 and 8-18" but the parolee was not home, and contact
was made with the parolee's mother instead. The parolee reported to the office as directed on
8-26. A note in the file indicated that the parolee continued to do well and required minimal
supervision.
23

- CONFIDENTIAL -

.J

In November 1998, there was a kidnaping and murder in Antioch. The probation office
responded by contacting local law enforcement and immediately contacting the parolee (11-17
and 11-18). The probation officer attempted a home visit on 11-17, but no one answered the
door. The probation officer left a note directing the parolee to the office on 11-18. The parolee
reported to the office as directed (11-18). The officer followed up with law enforcement and with
the paro lee's psychiatrist (11-16, 11-18, 11-19, and I 1-23). Law enforcement later advised in
that the parolee was not a suspect (2-5-99).
There was no documentation ofa successful home inspection. and no verification
ofsex offender registration in 1998.
1999
March 9, 1999 - The parolee received an early discharge from federal parole.

The parolee was released from parole on 3-9 at the recommendation of the U.S. Probation Office
in the Northern District of Cali fomi a, in accordance with Parole Commission policy. The
Certiticate of Early Tennination stated "After a thorough review of your case, the Commission
has decided that you are deserving of an early discharge. You are commended for having
responded positively to supervision and for ~he personal accomplishment(s) you have made. The
Commission trusts that you will continue to be a productive citizen and obey the laws of
society.
Nevada State Parole and Probation sent a letter requesting a current progress report on the
parolee (5-10). The probation officer responded with a report advising that the parolee had been
discharged from supervision (5-20).
It appears that the probation officer never verified that Garrido registered with
the State ofCalifornia as a sex offender.

ASSESSMENT OF SUPERVISION

There are many troubling issues with respect to how the probation officers supervised Phillip
Garrido, including significant gaps in the chronological record that suggest little or no activity.
Particularly significant is the lack of visits to Garrido's residence. For the most part, the
probation officers who supervised the offender either saw him in the office or relied upon the
treatment provider for infonnation about his status.
While correctly categorizing Garrido as "high activity," the probation officers who handled this
case over more than 10 years visited him at his residence perhaps 10 or 11 times. In three of the
years (1990, 1992, and 1994) it does not appear that an officer went to the residence even once.

24

- CONFIDENTIAL There was an attempted home visil on 12-13-1991, 6 months after Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped,
but it appears that Garrido cut Ihe visit short, saying that he was just leaving to take his wife to
work. There was no follow-up attempt to visit Garrido at home. Instead, all contact with the
offender took place in the probation office for the next 3 years. This includes the time that
Garrido's parole was violated for failure to report to this treatment provider and he was placed on
home confinement for 120 days (apparently, a Bureau of Prisons contractor installed the
electronic monitoring equipment and monitored Garrido's compliance). Based on an examination
of the case records, it appears that 40 months elapsed from the attempted home visit on 12-131991 to the next home visit on 5-2-1995.

It does not appear that the probation officer ever verified that Garrido had registered as a sex
offender, instead relying on the offender's representation that he had done so. It also does nol
appear that the probation officer made collaleral contacts with neighbors and local law
enforcement officers. A report from the victim of the 1977 kidnapping and rape that she had
seen Garrido on the street in November 1988 was dismissed by the probation officer as
"hysteria." There was inadequate follow up to instances of women at Garrido's place of
employment feeling "nervous" around him. The offender was even allowed to work for a time as
a door-to-door salesman, despite the obviolls risk to third parties.
Communications with Nevada State Parole and Probation officials were perfunctory and actually
misleading, with confirmed illegal drug use being glossed over with summaries such as "He has
been cooperating with our office with no major problems," or "The subject is seen on a
bimonthly basis by this officer and has posed no problems thus far."

25

- CONFIDENTIAL POLICY IN EFFECT AFTER GARRIDO'S PAROLE TERMINATION
In January 2000, 7 months after Garrido's parole was terminated, the Director of the AOUSC
appointed an ad hoc supervision working group to update the 1991 version of Monograph 109 to
reflect statutory changes over the 9 years since the last update. The group also was asked to
incorporate research in the field of community corrections that demonstrated effectiveness in
reducing recidivism and promoting the successful reentry of offenders in the community.
After 3 years of work that involved the collaboration of chiefs, deputy chiefs. supervisors, senior
officers, and line officers from 40 districts, the revised Monograph 109 retained the emphasis on
purposeful supervision based on individual assessments, but placed added ernphasis on:
Desired outcomes and goals of supervision;'
Ongoing collaboration between officers, supervisors, and officer specialists to
improve assessment or risk and risk-related needs:
Reentry planning before the offender's release from Bureau of Prisons custody;
Home inspection during the initial assessment and more tield work generally;
Collaboration with others in the community (including law enforcement);
A two-pronged approach to both control and reduce risk; and
A focus on continued success beyond the period of supervision.
To support this policy change, the AOUSC released a national automated case plan and
chronological records system. These features allowed for improved record keeping and case
management across the country.
After the major update to Monograph 109 in 2003, there were several updates that retained the
emphasis on individualized, tailored approaches to supervision. These updates are described in
the following section.

26

,-

- CONFIDENTIAL POLICY IN EFFECT CURRENTLY

Supervision of Federal Offenders (Monograph 109)
Supervision ofFederal Offenders, Monograph 109, adopted by the Judicial Conference of the
United States in March 2008, contains the most current policies guiding the supervision of
federal offenders by probation officers. The most significant change in this version of the
monograph was the addition of a new chapter titled "Supervision of Offenders with Treatment
Services Needs."

The current monograph gives specific direction to officers regarding their role in verifying sex
offenders' compliance with state and local sex offender registry requirements. It also indicates
that officers must comply with 18 U.S ,C. § 4042( c), which requires the probation office to
provide information to the chief law enforcement officer 0 f the state and local jurisdiction in
which the sex offender resides and to a state or local agency responsible for receiving or
maintaining sex offender registration information.
The monograph provides specific guidance regarding supervision of sex offenders in the areas 'of
evaluation, monitoring and intervention (including how to address perceived risk), and sexoffense specific treatment. In addition to addressing issues specific to supervising sex offenders,
the monograph addresses supervision practices for high-risk offenders.
Treatment Services Statement of Work

Since fiscal year 1996, the national statement of work officers use to contract for treatment
services has included detailed descriptions of services related to the treatment and management
of sex offenders. In addition to individual and group counseling, authorized services include
polygraphs and plethysmographs. Since the federal probation and pretrial serVices system began
using specialized sex offender treatment, the AOUSC has continued to modify and enhance the
statement of work for sex offense- related services as research has continued to focus on
managing the sex offender as the means to reduce recidivism.
Initial Probation and Pretrial Services Officer Training

Since 2007, newly appointed probation and pretrial services officers have completed a 6-week
new officer training program at the AOUSC's National Training Academy in South Carolina.
During this program, officers receive training in various investigation and supervision policies
and procedures, including a 4-hour block of instruction dedicated to sex offenders. For
experienced officers, the Federal Judicial Center offers training on sex offenders through its
Special Needs Offenders Series bulletins and broadcasts. These include: Special Needs
Offenders: An Overview of Sex Offenders in the Federal System (October 1998); Special Needs
Offenders: FCI Butner Sex Offender Treatment Program, Parts One and Two (December 2000
and March 2001); and Special Needs Offenders: Sex Offenders Update (December 2002).

27

- CONFIDENTIAL CURRENT PRACTICES IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PROBATION OFFICE
The new management of the probation office has undertaken a major overhaul of supervision
practices in the district, and has established district standards to supplement national standards
and hold probation officers more accountable. As a first step, all probation officers reviewed
each of their cases and classified them based on their scores on the Risk Prediction Index (RPI).
Each case was then designated high, medium, low, or administrative activity based on the RPI
score. The second step involved training both supervisors and officers on how to properly
enforce the standards. As a third step. probation management will evaluate the new standards at
the end of fiscal year 20 J O.
Other steps have been implemented. including a requirement that probation officers with
caseloads perform a minimum of 32 hours of field work each month. Officers have been directed
to investigate and report noncompliance to the court immediately. The office has also performed
several high-intensity field projects focused on addressing noncompliance issues with the highest
risk offenders.
The probation office also created a Computer Internet Monitoring Program(CIMP) and promoted
three officers to the position of Special Offender Coordinators. Two of these officers have been
trained to operate a forensic lab and perform forensic inspections of computers where there is a
special search condition. The third officer will serve as a treatment program specialist for sexoffenders.
The probation office has a sex offender working group that includes all officers who supervise
sex offenders. They meet quarterly to discuss patterns, strategies, and other supervision issues.
Additionally, officers have been trained on how to perform community observation (surveillance)
and use all available databases provided by the AOUSC.
Four classes of active supervision cases have been established in the probation office: High,
Medium, Low, and Administrative. A fifth category exists of inactive Immigration and Customs
Enforcement cases where deportation has been verified and warrant cases. Ideally, a generalist
probation officer wi II not have more than 5 to 10 percent of his or her caseload categorized as a
high-activity case. Specialists, who have smaller caseloads, will obviously have a higher
percentage. The majority of a generalists caseload will be made up of medium-activity cases with
probation officer assistants having the majority of low-activity and administrative cases. See:
Appendix C, Post-Conviction Supervision Standards, Northern District of California.

28

- CONFIDENTIAL POTENTIAL NATIONAL POLICY CHANGES

Policy development and improvement is a continual process. The AOUSC's Office of Probation
and Pretrial Services (OPPS) has been looking at policies related to general supervision practices
and the management of sex offenders in reference to research-driven decision-making. As a
result of this continual evaluation and improvement, the following changes are under
consideration and will be submitted to the Criminal Law Committee in 2011.
Supervision Practices

In July 2008, the AOUSC Director appointed the ad hoc Sex Offender Management Working
Group--made up of 16 probation and pretrial services officers and specialists and staff from the
Federal Judicial Center and the OPPS--to update policies related to the supervision of sex
offenders.
The working group has set a goal to develop enhanced sex offender management policies in the
areas of pretrial services. presentence investigations, and post-conviction supervision. It also has
collaborated with the Location Monitoring Working Group to address specific risk control
activities for high-risk and violent offenders.
The working group has focused on sex offender supervision practices using the widely accepted
"Containment Model." The model requires the officer, in supervising someone classified as a
sex offender, to be involved with local and community law enforcement, specialized sex offense
treatment personnel, polygraph examiners, and community support networks. The proposed
policy gives the officer guidance in such areas as:
Disclosing information to third parties;
Initiating risk management strategies;
Identifying dynamic and static risk factors;
Supervising high-risk offenders;
Supervising offenders of undetermined risk;
Using computer monitoring and forensics;
Assessing reasonable risk versus specific third-party risk;
Collaborating with community support networks;
Using search and seizure appropriately;
Using specialized sex offense treatment; and
Using the polygraph as a supervision tool.
Assuming that the proposed policy is approved by the Criminal Law Committee and the Judicial
Conference, a comprehensive training program will accompany the implementation of the new
policy guidance in 201.1. The AOUSC plans to offer regional training seminars, a national
conference, and an updated curriculum at the National Training Academy to help officers
understand and implement the new policy.

29

- CONFIDENTIAL Search and Seizure

The Judicial Conference of the United States issued Model Search and Seizure Guidelines in
1993. Those guidelines, which were in effect during the federal supervision of Philip Garrido,
disfavored searches and were silent on when a search may be appropriate.
New guidelines were approved by the Judicial Conference in September 20 10. The new
guidelines recognize searches as an appropriate supervision tool when less intrusive methods
would not adequately protect the public. The guidelines provide lor new reporting procedures,
training and set out specific factors for probation officers to consider when recommending,
initiating, or conducting a search. Training on the new search guidelines will begin during 2011.

30

- CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES
Appendix A: Time Line of Legal Events Surrounding Phillip Garrido

,

.

Appendix B: Federal Statutory Changes Related to Sex Offender Registration
Appendix C: Post-Conviction Supervision Standards, Northern District of California

- CONFIDENTIAL Appendix A

TIME LINE OF LEGAL EVENTS SURROUNDING PHILLIP GARRIDO
(Underlined dates indicate that the events transpired while Garrido was under federal
supervision.)
May 1970

Phillip Garrido is convicted of possession of marijuana and LSD.
He receives probation.

March 1972

Garrido is convicted ofpossession of marijuana and visiting a
place where drugs are used. He receives 90 days jail and
probation.

April 1972

Garrido is arrested for Contributing to the Delinquency ofa Minor,
Possible Rape, and Adult Providing Dangerous Drugs to a Minor.
Case is dismissed for "furtherance of justice."

November 1976

Garrido is arrested for kidnapping (the federal offense) and rape in
Reno, Nevada.

December 1976

Garrido is charged with Rape and Kidnapping for a crime that
allegedly occurred in EI Dorado County, California, in June 1976.

March 1977

Garrido is convicted on federal kidnapping charges stemming from
the November 1976 arrest. He is sentenced to 50 years
imprisonment.

April 1977

Garrido is convicted of forcible rape by State of Nevada. He is
sentenced to 5 years to life.

April 1977-January 1988

Garrido is incarcerated in federal prison.

January 1988

Garrido is paroled from federal prison and transferred to the
Nevada Department of Prisons.

January-August 1988

Garrido is incarcerated in Nevada State Prison.

August 1988

Garrido is paroled from Nevada State Prison and placed in a
community treatment center under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons.

December 16. 1988-

Garrido is supervised by the U.S. Probation Office - CAIN

June 10, J 991

Garrido allegedly kidnaps Jaycee Dugard from South Lake Tahoe,
California.
A-I

- CONFIDENTIAL -

March 18, 1993

Garrido fails to comply with drug testing, treatment, and
appointments with the probation officer. U.S. Parole Commission
issues a warrant at the request of the probation office.

April I, 1993

Garrido is arrested on the U.S. Parole Commission warrant.

May 10, 1993

Garrido is placed on 120 days of electronic monitoring (Radio
Frequency; administered by third-party contractor through the
Federal Bureau of Prisons)

September 6, 1993

Garrido is released back to the supervision of the Northern District
of California probation office.

March 9, 1999

U,S. Parole Commission terminates Garrido's federal parole
supervision early.

June 8, 1999

State of California begins parole supervision of Garrido per
interslate compact with State of Nevada.

June 9, 1999

Garrido registers with the State of California as a sex offender.

April 14,2008

State of California begins GPS monitoring of Garrido.

August 26, 2009

Garrido and his wife are arrested for kidnaping and sexually
assaulting Jaycee Dugard.

A-2

- CONFIDENTIAL )

Appendix B

FEDERAL STATUTORY CHANGES RELATED TO SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION
1994 - Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration
Act - Enacted as a part of the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1994, this Act:
Established guidelines for states to track sex offenders.
. Required states to track sex offenders by confinning their place of residence
annually for 10 years after their release into the community or quarterly for the
rest of their lives if the sex offender was convicted of a violent sex crime.
1996 - Megan's Law - During the mid-1990's, every state, along with the District of Columbia,
passed a Megan's Law. In January 1996, Congress enacted the federal Megan's Law that:
Provided for public dissemination of infonnation from states' sex offender
registries. Information collected under state registration programs could be
disclosed for any purpose pennitted under a state Jaw.
Required state and local law enforcement agencies to release relevant infonnation
necessary to protect the public about persons registered under a state registration
program established under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act.
1996 - Pam Lychner Sex Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 - This Act:
Required the Attorney General to establish a national database (the National Sex
Offender Registry, or NSOR) by which the FBI could track certain sex offenders.
Mandated certain sex offenders living in a state without a minimally sufficient sex
offender registry program to register with the FBI.
Required the FBI to periodically verify the addresses of the sex offenders to whom
the Act pertains.
Allowed for the dissemination of infonnation collected by the FBI necessary to
protect the public to federal, state, and local officials responsible for law
enforcement activities or for running background checks pursuant to the National
Child Protection Act (42 U.s.C. §5119, et. seq.).
Set forth provisions relating to notification of the FBI and state agencies when a
certain sex offender moved to another state.

B-1

- CONFIDENTIAL -

-,

1997 - Jacob Wetterling Improvements Act - Passed as part of the Appropriations Act of 1998,
this Act took several steps to amend provisions of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, the Pam Lychner Sex Offender
Tracking and Identification Act, and other federal statutes. This Act:
Changed the way in which state courts make a detennination about whether a
convicted sex offender should be considered a sexually violent offender to include
the opinions not just of sex offender behavior and treatment experts, but also of
victims rights advocates and law enforcement representatives.
Allowed a state to impart the responsibilities of notification, registration, and FBI
notification to a state agency beyond each state's law enforcement agency, if the
state so chose.
Required registered offenders who change their state of residence to register under
the new state's laws.
Required registered offenders to register in the states where they worked or went
to school if those states were different from their state of residence.
Directed states to participate in the National Sex Offender Registry.
Required each state to set up procedures for registering out-of-state offenders,
federal offenders, offenders sentenced by court martial, and non-resident offenders
crossing the border to work or attend school.
Allowed states the discretion to register individuals who committed offenses that
did not include the Act's definition of registerable offenses.
Required the Bureau of Prisons to notify state agencies of released or paroled
.federal offenders.
Required the Secretary of Defense to track and ensure registration compliance of
offenders with certain UCMJ convictions.
1998 - Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act - This Act:
Directed the Bureau of Justice Assistance to carry out the Sex Offender
Management Assistance (SOMA) program to help eligible states comply with
registration requirements.
Prohibited federal funding to programs that gave federal prisoners access to the
Internet without supervision.

B-2

- CONFIDENTIAL 2000 - Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act - Passed as part of the Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Protection Act, this Act:
Required any person who was obligated to register in a state's sex offender
registry to notify the institution of higher education at which the sex offender
worked or was a student of his or her status as a sex offender; and to notify the
same institution if there was any change in his or her enrollment or employment
status.
Required that the information collected as a result of this Act be reported
promptly to local law enforcement and entered promptly into the appropriate state
record systems.
Amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions obligated to
disclose campus security policy and campus crime statistics to also provide notice
of how information concerning registered sex offenders could be obtained.
2003 - Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today
(PROTECT) Act - This Act:
Required states to maintain a web site containing registry information, and
required the Department of Justice to maintain a web site with links to each state
web site.
Authorized appropriations to help defray state costs for compliance with new sex
offender registration provisions.
2006 - Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act - This Act:
Created a new baseline standard for jurisdictions to implement regarding sex
offender registration and notification.
Expanded the definition of "jurisdiction" to include 212 federally-recognized
Indian Tribes, of whom 197 have elected to start up their own sex offender
registration and notification systems.
Expanded the number of sex offenses that must be captured by registration
jurisdictions to include all state. territory, tribal, federal, and UCMJ sex offense
convictions, as well as certain foreign convictions.
Created the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART Office) within the Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, to administer the standards for sex offender
notification and registration, administer the grant programs authorized by the
Adam Walsh Act, and coordinate related training and technical assistance.

B-3

. CONFIDENTIAL Established a Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) program within the
Justice Department.
2007 - Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Applicability of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (28 CFR, Part 72), February 28, 2007
. Federal regulation passed to specify that SORNA's registration requirements are
retroactive.
2008 - Keeping the Internet Devoid of Predators Act (KIDS Act) October 13,2008 - This Act:
Amended SORNA to require registration jurisdictions to register Internet
Identi fiers.
Exempted Internet Identifiers from disclosure on any registration jurisdiction's
public sex offender registry website.

8-4

- CONFIDENTIAL -

-I

Appendix C
POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION STANDARDS, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA (as provided by the Northern District ofCalitornia)
Overview

There are four classes of active supervision cases in the NDCA- High. Medium. Low and Admin.
A fifth categ~ry exists of inactive cases. These are ICE cases whcredeportation has been verified
as well aSllWarrant cases. Ideally a generalist officer will not have more lhan 5-10% of his or her
caseload categorized as a high activity case. Specialists. with their lower caseload numbers, etc.
will obviously have a higher percentage. The majority or a gem:ralist's caseload will be made up
of medium activity cases with POAs having the vast majority of low activity and Admin cases.
Higb .'.ctivity Cases

Definition: All sex offenders, active gang members. offenders with severe mental health or
substance abuse problems. active home confinement cases. and other cases as needed. After one
year on supervision. case can be reclassified by the SUSPO and USPO depending on
performance.
.
Activities: Personal or collateral contact 6 times in 6 months, at least four in the field. Attempts
do not count. Standard supervision activities. i.e.. case plans per 109. rap sheet review. treatment
referrals, testing, etc.).
Medium Activity

Definition: Medium Risk offenders- all felony title 21 offenses not categorized as high activity.
those with RPls 5 and higher not categorized as high activity. All offenders actively in treatment
that are not high activity. Would be the majority of a generalist's caseload.
Activities: Personal or collateral contact 4 times in 6 months. at least 2 of which are in the field.
Attempts do not count. (standard supervision activities. ie., case plans per 109, rap sheet review,
treatment referrals, testing, etc.)
Low Activit)'

Definition: Low risk offenders. i.e. those with RPls of2 and below. Offender who has
demonstrated compliance during supervision. satisfied treatment conditions. making regular
payments on fine/restitution, working on CSW. offense did not involve crime of violence or
firearm. Cases with high RPls, history of violence, etc. are generally not cligible. Exceptions can
be approvod by SUSPO and USPO. Would generally be supervised by a rOA.
Activities: Personal or collateral contact two times every 6 months. Preferably in the field.
Offenders should not actively be in treatment. other standard supervision activities would apply.

C-

J

- CONFIDENTIAL -

e

Administrative Activity

Definition: Low Intensity Cases as defined in Monograph 109
Activities: Minimal activities- no case plan after designated as Administrative Case·. Periodic
record checks, review of MSRs, etc. Supervised by a POA.
Re-Entry Duties and expectations

- USPO meets with Inmate prior to release to activate the case, generally 120 days prior to
release. Ifnot releasing from RRC, documents reviewed 30 days prior to release.
- At least one subsequent face to face 10-60 days prior to release to veri fy release plan and
address issues
- Upon release, USPO meets with offender within 5 working days of release and conditions arc
reviewed. I f treatment is needed, it is set up at this time. ICSP interview done
- ICSP is completed within 30 days of release (60 days allowed if the offender arrives at RRC
less than JO days prior to release).
Classification and Reclassification

A case will be c1assitied as high, medium, low, or admin activity level at the time the Inital Case
Plan is finalized. The USPO will recommend the activity level with SUSPO approval. The
activity level will be documented with a canned chrono so that reports can be generated from
PACTS using the chrono code.
A case can have its activity level re-classified during the case planning process or when
appropriate and agreed upon by the POA/USPO and SUSPO.
Violation behavior involving new criminal activity will automatically move a case from Admin
Activity level to either low, medium or high activity level depending on the circumstances.
Standard supervision duties and expectations- Initial and revised case plans completed and
submitted on time by USPO/POA

- Initial case plans reviewed and finalized by SUSPO within 2 weeks of submission
- Home inspection of residence for new releases completed within 30 days of commencing
supervision.
- Violation behavior reported to the court in a timely manner per chapter V of Monograph 109
- Offenders referred into treatment/testing per treatment policy/guidelines. Deviations from
guidelines will be supported in chronos and other supporting documentation, i.e., TCUDS.
Waivers of requirement to test/participate in treatment staffed with SUS PO and chronoed.

C-2

- CONFIDENTIAL -

i

-Chronos updated as needed. Generally within 72 hours of action.
- Home inspection of new residence (move) completed within 30 days.
- All offenders orientated to conditions of release/probation/parole within 5 days of release unless
holidays/weekends/offender travel from BOP make this impossible. Orientation then completed
ASAP.
- Rap sheets reviewed via ATLAS after first 6 months on supervision. and annually thereafter.
Final review 60 days prior to expiration.
- Third party risk re-evaluated when there is a change in residency. employment. or signiticant
changes in personal relationships.
- MSRs reviewed, changes noted. and receipt is chrnnoed in PACTS by 20th of the month.
- HC/Locillion monitoring conditions implemented within 15 working days of condition being
added/supervision started.

C-J

ATTACHMENT # 11

f

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALlFORNtA
PROBATION OFFICE

LOREN A.N. BUDDRESS
CHU:F PROOA TION OFFletA

PLEASE AEPL Y TO:

U.S. COURT HOUSE
450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SUITE '18400
POST OFFICE BOX J6067
SAN fRANCISCO. CA 94102·3487

'3306AOADWAY
SUITE '400
OAKLAND. CA B4!112·2'5()4

TEL: 510-273·7101
FAX; 6 I ()..273·6350

TEL: 416·656-0200
fAX: 416·656·6351

March 15. 1993

Commissioner
U. S. Parole Commission
525 Griffin Street, Suite 820
Dallas, TX 75202-5097

RE:

GARRIDO, Phillip
Reg. No. 36377-136
WARRANT REQUEST

Sir:
The above parolee has been under the supervision of this office'since his release from
federal custody on December 16, 1988. He has an expiration date of 2027.
Up until approximately two months ago, the parolee appeared to be doing generally
well. He has been in psychological therapy since his release and had cooperated fully
in all aspects of his supervision. He had been prescribed lithium to eliminate mood
swings, and he appeared to be taking the medication as prescribed.
More recently his wife has been calling in cancelling scheduled appointments with the
probation officer, citing transportation problems. He had standing appointments with
the undersigned every other Wednesday. Numerous home visits were unsuccessful
due to no answer at the door. The family car was in the driveway each time we
attempted home contact.
It is alleged that the parolee violated parole conditions as follows:
Charge 1. That he violated condition number 5 in that on or about February 10, 1993
he failed to report to the probation officer as directed.
Charge 2. That he violated condition number 5 in that on or about February 26. 1993
he failed to report to the probation officer as directed.

000733

;

RE: GARRIDO, Phillip

Commissioner
U. S. Parole Commission
March 15, 1993
Page 2
Charge 3. That he violated condition number 5 in that
he failed to report to the probation officer as directed.

on

or about March 10, 1993

Charge 4. That he violated a special parole condition in that he failed to report for
urinalysis testing as directed.
Charge 5, That he violated a special condition of parole in that on or about March 12,
1993 he failed to report for drug aftercare counseling as directed.
The crime for which the parolee was sentenced was extremely violent and he poses
a considerable risk to the community at this time. He has very serious psychological
problems which increase the risk to the community.
It is recommended that a parole warrant be issued as soon as possible.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Supervising U. S. Probation Officer

000734

4-1-93

SUbj arrested by US Marshall. JJL

000449

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CAUFORNlA
PROBATION OFFICE

LOREN A.N. BUOORESS
CHIEF PROM nON OFFICER

PLEASE REPLY TO:

U.S. COURT HOUSE
460 GOLDEN GATt: AVENUE
SUITt: 116400
POST OFFICE BOX 36067
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-3467

1330 BROAOWAY
1400
OAKLAND, CA 94612·2504

Sum:

COM:416-l7:1.7101
I'TS:
636-7101
FAX: 416·27:1.6:360

COM:4 \ 5·656-0200
FTS:
566-0200
FAX: 416-56«5-535'

April 14, 1993

RE: Garrido, PhiUip
REG. NO: 36377-136
CONFIDENTIAL RECOMl\1ENDATION
The charges against Mr. Garrido are basically technical violations and he has been in custody since April 1,
1993. AdditionaJJy, Mr. Garrido has resources in the community and has expressed extreme remorse and
regret for committing the aforementioned violations. It appears that his recent incarceration has had a powerful
and positive impact on his. Accordingly, it is recommended that the parolee be released back to the community
at the earliest possible time, and placed on electronic monitoring as an appropriate sanction ..

Respectfully submitted,

U.S. PROBATION OFFICER

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

SUPERVISING U;S. PROBATION OFFICER

000738

u.s.

Department of Justice
United States Parole Commission

525 GrIffin Street?

Dallas. rexas

75202

$ut['e~2~ ~,l

April 30, 1993
U:

Warden
FOC Dublin

r. n

•. -

1';'.)j

"

"

-

f,:,,', .

'.'j:

;)/-,~

Rei

GARRIDO, Phillip

Reg. No.

36377-136

Dear Sir:
Please withdraw the warrant issued on March 18, 1993 on the
above-named subject, and return all materials to our office.
Effective 04-29-93 , Commissioner Getty
the above named subject which reads:

issued an order on

Release forthwith. Withdraw warrant dated March 18, 1993.
Reinstate to supervision with the drug aftercare condition and
electronic monitoring for 120 days.
A copy of our Notice of Action is attached for your files.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sinc~rely,

cc:

USPO~

oakl~
File!Chrono

SO!mg

000744

ATTACHMENT # 12

ATIACHMENT #12

To view attachment #12 please go to:

http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/Government/ELDODA!Press Releases.aspx
(attached to press release entitled "EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office
Findings Re Jaycee Lee Dugard Case")

ATTACHMENT # 13