Amarik K. Singh, Inspector General

OIG

OFFICE of the
INSPECTOR GENERAL

Independent Prison Oversight

March 2022

Special Report
The California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Processing of Disabled
Incarcerated Persons’ Staff
Misconduct Allegations at the
Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility

Electronic copies of reports published by the Office of the Inspector General
are available free in portable document format (PDF) on our website.
We also offer an online subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe,
visit www.oig.ca.gov.
For questions concerning the contents of this report,
please contact Shaun Spillane, Public Information Officer,
at 916-255-1131.

STATE of CALIFORNIA

of the
OIG OFFICE
INSPECTOR GENERAL

Amarik K. Singh, Inspector General

Independent Prison Oversight

Regional Offices
Sacramento

March 1, 2022

Bakersfield
Rancho Cucamonga

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
Enclosed is the Office of Inspector General’s special report titled The California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Processing of Disabled Incarcerated Persons’ Allegations of Staff Misconduct
at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The report includes findings by the Office of the Inspector
General following its monitoring of staff misconduct inquiry cases that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) completed in response to staff misconduct allegations
made by disabled incarcerated persons at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in 2020 and 2021.
We conducted our monitoring from August 2020 through July 2021. During that period, the department
completed 257 inquiry cases. OIG attorneys monitored 204 of those cases. For 155 of the 204 cases, the
OIG fully monitored them. This meant we assessed whether the department timely completed the cases,
evaluated the investigators’ inquiry work, and examined the prison warden’s decisions concerning the
cases. The OIG partially monitored the remaining 49 of the 204 cases. This meant we began monitoring
these cases but stopped after determining the deadline had passed to take disciplinary action against
the staff member or members who allegedly committed misconduct. As to the 204 cases, we assessed
the overall inquiry work by the department as poor in 186 cases, or 91 percent. For the remaining
18 cases, or 9 percent, we determined the department performed satisfactory work in completing the
cases. In no cases did the department receive a superior rating.
We identified four key concerns. First, we concluded the department delayed in completing the
cases, including not completing most of the cases before deadlines had passed to take disciplinary
action against the staff members who allegedly committed misconduct and, therefore, preventing
the imposition of any disciplinary action against those staff members. Second, we found that, overall,
the quality of the investigators’ inquiry work was poor due to deficient interviews, improper or
inadequate evidence collection, and inaccurate or incomplete inquiry report submission. Third, we
determined the investigators compromised the confidentiality of several of the inquiry cases, primarily
by either conducting interviews in nonconfidential locations or unnecessarily revealing confidential
information to witnesses or subjects during the cases. Finally, we concluded that the warden made
several inappropriate decisions regarding the cases, including decisions not supported by the evidence,
decisions for cases in which he did not fully review the evidence, and decisions for cases in which he
was not an impartial decision-maker.

Gavin Newsom, Governor
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95827
Telephone: (916) 255-1102
www.oig.ca.gov

Governor and Legislative Leaders
March 1, 2022
Special Report of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Processing of Disabled
Incarcerated Persons’ Allegations of Staff Misconduct at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
Page 2

Of the 257 staff misconduct inquiry cases, the department has processed and resolved 256 cases. The
warden concluded there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct in 20 of the cases and requested
an investigation from the department’s Office of Internal Affairs for them. As of the publication date
of this report, the warden has sustained misconduct allegations in only one case. The officers in that
case received letters of instruction, which are not disciplinary action, but instead a form of corrective
action. Therefore, as of the publication date of this report, the department has not formally disciplined
staff members relative to any of the staff allegations submitted by the disabled incarcerated persons
pertaining to this project. The department has not yet resolved one remaining case.
In January 2022, the department implemented emergency regulations revising its statewide process
for reviewing incarcerated persons’ allegations of staff misconduct. It is important to note that this
report does not examine the new statewide process to review incarcerated persons’ allegations of staff
misconduct. We will soon begin monitoring the department’s implementation of this new process and
will report our assessment and observations of the new process in future reports. Rather, in this report
we review the staff misconduct inquiry cases the department conducted in 2020 and 2021 pursuant to
a special project the department launched after receiving sworn declarations disabled incarcerated
persons filed in federal court. The inquiry cases we review in this report were completed by the
department before it implemented the January 2022 emergency regulations.
Respectfully submitted,

Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | iii

Contents
Illustrations

iv

Summary

1

Overall, the Department Poorly Addressed Staff
Misconduct Allegations Made by Disabled
Incarcerated Persons at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility During a Special Project
in 2020 and 2021

1

Scope and Methodology

3

Monitoring Results

7

The Department Delayed in Completing Cases

7

The Investigators Poorly Conducted Interviews,
Collected Evidence, and Produced Reports

14

The Investigators Compromised
the Confidentiality of Some Cases

22

The Warden Reached Several Inappropriate
Decisions Concerning Cases

24

Appendix: The 204 Case Summaries
Response by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to This Report

31
347

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

iv | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Illustrations
Tables
Terms Used in This Report

vi

Terms for Categories of OIG Monitored Staff Misconduct
Inquiry Cases Used in This Report

vii

1. The 21 Assessment Questions

5

2. Outcome of 20 Staff Misconduct Inquiry Cases
the Warden Referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Central Intake Unit for an Investigation

28

Graphics
The Inspector General’s Mandate
Map of the Department’s Institutions and Parole Regions

v
viii

“Scales of Justice” (cover): Graphic image designed by the U.S. Department of Justice;
sourced via the internet
“Lady Justice” (page v): Adapted from an illustration at www.vecteezy.com

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | v

Lady Justice

There is hereby
created the
independent
Office of the
Inspector General
which shall not be
a subdivision
of any other
governmental
entity.
— State of California
(Penal Code section 6125)

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

vi | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Terms Used in This Report

Allegation Inquiry

The collection of preliminary information concerning an allegation of employee
misconduct necessary to evaluate whether a matter shall be referred to the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit. Allegation inquiries shall be
conducted at the direction of the hiring authority when there is an allegation
of misconduct, which if true could lead to adverse action, and the subject(s),
allegation(s), or both are not clearly defined or more information is necessary
to determine if misconduct may have occurred. Certain prison employees or
Office of Internal Affairs’ investigators, lieutenants, or special agents conduct
allegation inquiries.

Corrective Action

A documented nonadverse action taken by a supervisor to assist an employee
to improve his or her work performance, behavior, or conduct. Examples of
these actions include verbal counseling,
in-service training, on-the-job training, written counseling, or a letter
of instruction.

Declaration

A formal statement made in writing and under penalty of perjury.

Declaration Allegation Review
Team

A team of task force investigators managed by the Office of Internal Affairs,
consisting of lieutenants and special agents, to conduct staff misconduct
inquiries in 2020 and 2021 at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
Commonly referred to as DART.

Department Operations
Manual

The department’s operations manual. The full title is California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation Adult Institutions, Programs, and Parole
Operations Manual. It is commonly referred to as the DOM.

Disciplinary Action

A documented action, punitive in nature and intended to correct misconduct
or poor performance or terminate employment and may be appealed to the
State Personnel Board. It is the charging document served on an employee who
is being disciplined, advising the employee of the causes for discipline and the
penalty to be imposed. Examples of these actions include a letter of reprimand,
pay reduction, suspension without pay, or termination. Also referred to as
adverse action or a notice of adverse action.

Hiring Authority

The individual who has the authority to hire and discipline staff under his or
her signature authority. In the context of this report, with two exceptions, the
hiring authority for the staff misconduct inquiry cases was the warden of the
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

Inquiry

See entry for Allegation Inquiry, this table.

Investigation

The collection of evidence that supports or refutes an allegation of misconduct,
including criminal investigations, administrative investigations, retaliation
investigations, or allegation inquiries. The department conducts either criminal
investigations, which concern the investigation of a potential crime or crimes,
or administrative investigations, which concern the investigation of an alleged
violation of a policy, procedure, or other administrative rule.

Investigator

In the context of this report, a special agent or lieutenant assigned to conduct
an allegation inquiry.
Continued on next page.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | vii

Terms Used in This Report (Continued)

Office of Internal Affairs

The office within the department authorized to conduct inquiry cases and
investigate staff misconduct allegations. This office works independently of the
prison chain of command. In general, Office of Internal Affairs Allegation Inquiry
Management Section lieutenants conduct inquiry cases; Office of Internal Affairs
Central Intake Unit special agents review and process requests from hiring
authorities for investigations; and Office of Internal Affairs special agents, from
both its regional teams and headquarters, conduct investigations.

Special Agent

In the context of this report, a special agent is an investigator employed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, assigned to investigate
allegations of staff misconduct.

Staff Misconduct Grievance

An incarcerated person may appeal (or challenge) any policy, decision,
condition, or omission by the department that has a material adverse effect
upon his or her health, safety, or welfare. Toward that end, an incarcerated
person may use the form “CDCR Form 602” (commonly referred to a “602”) to
file his or her appeal or complaint.

Subject

In the context of this report, an employee who allegedly committed misconduct
or engaged in criminal activity.

Source: The Office of the Inspector General.

Terms for Categories Used in This Report Identifying the Types
of Staff Misconduct Inquiry Cases That the OIG Monitored
Fully Monitored Cases

The 155 staff misconduct inquiry cases completed by the department in
which the OIG monitored all the inquiry work performed by departmental
investigators, including monitoring each interview and reviewing the
corresponding final inquiry report.

Partially Monitored Cases

The 49 staff misconduct inquiry cases the department opened in 2021 and in
which the OIG monitored only part of the department’s inquiry work. The OIG
determined that the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired in the 49
cases and, therefore, did not expend further resources in continuing to monitor
the cases. In most of those cases, the OIG did not monitor any interviews. The
OIG did not review the final inquiry report for any of these cases.

All Monitored Cases

The 204 cases the OIG monitored in connection with this report, including the
155 fully monitored cases and the 49 partially monitored cases.

Source: The Office of the Inspector General.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

viii | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Institutions and Parole Regions
8

CDCR Headquarters

Adult Institutions
A BRV

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1515 "S" Sl.
Sacramento, CA95811

FAC ILITY NAME

LOCATION

PeUeanBayStatePrison

CreseentClly

California Correctional Center
High Deser1Slate Pri9<:<"I

ii

FolSOmState Prison

Represa

C1lifoml1S1'1t Prilon, S1cr1menlO

ReprM I

CMF

C11i1omia Mtdluil Faelllly

V.eavilt

MCSP

Mule CrH k State Pr1.an

SO

C1lifornia StatePrlson. S1nOuent,n

CDCR Training Center
Richard A. McGee Trainirig c enter
9850TwlnCitles Rd.
Galt, CA95632

S1nOuentin

C1liforni1HollhC1rt Facillly

Parole Regions

11

sec

14

VSP

s 1tt,, conw ,v1tionCt n1t<
Deuel\Jocatlonl l ln ll~ullon

North Parole Region

South Paro le Reg io n

Trac y

C.ntrlli Ce~omia Wom11n'• Facility

Valley State Pnson

* Euro«•

CorrecOonelTralnlngFaei ity

ii*s.....,,,.
ii

P!nsant Valley StatePrilon

Coalinga

19

SATF

Sub118nceAbuseTr111tment F1cll~y

Corcof1111

24

CMC

Cal~omiaMen 't Colony

Sanlui1 0bi&po

Cel ifomi& Co<raction.. ln1~1u11on

TehacN pl

K-.nv11~ yStat1 Pl11011

* Ouncy
25

2e

LAC

C• liforn i. Si. tePriton,L.A. Coo nty

Chuc11tw, 1, v.I1ey s1a1e Ptl10<'1

Blylhe

lronwoodS .. te Prlso,,

Blylhe

C1Mpatrla St1teP~IOrl

Calipatrla

CenbMi&StalePrlaon

lmpe,ial

RJDonov1nCorractiof\llF1ellity

SanDiego

CalCityCorracUoo.. Ceoter

Calilomi&City

'I Juvenile Institutions
ABRV

FACILITY NAME

LOCATION

N.A Cnaderjl1nYoulhCorr&e110n1IFaclhty
0.H CloMYo,HhCorrtctioo.. FKillty
J0 .....110'Wtl~

Ven!uraYouthCorract,ooalFac,I,ty

· -·

• Trtc;

'iii

e Community Correctional Facilities
*"""'
* Fruno

ABRV

FAC ILITY NAME

2

GSMCCF

GoklenS1allModilledCCF
c , ntrel \/alley Modille-d CCF

3

CVMCCF

4

SMCCF

ShatterModifl&dCCF

5

TMCCF

TaftMod ifledCCF

e

DVMCCF

DIM II VI..,, Modlfie<I CCF

.Vi....

♦ Bok«tfiold

•

S..~LulOOb<&pc>

0

m·
0

Map provided courtesy of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

LOCATION

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 1

Summary
Overall, the Department Poorly Addressed
Staff Misconduct Allegations Made by Disabled
Incarcerated Persons at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility During a Special Project in
2020 and 2021
Beginning in January 2020, several disabled incarcerated persons
housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in Southern
California submitted a series of declarations signed under penalty of
perjury in federal court describing staff misconduct allegations at the
prison. The incarcerated persons were members of a class action of
plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, known as the Armstrong case, in which
disabled incarcerated persons and parolees alleged that the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) violated
the Americans with Disabilities Act in its treatment and handling of
incarcerated persons and parolees.1
In response to the filing of the declarations, the department assembled
a team to address the allegations. The team included attorneys from the
department’s Office of Legal Affairs and a task force of investigators
managed by its Office of Internal Affairs. In 2020 and 2021, these
investigators—lieutenants and special agents—completed staff
misconduct inquiry cases looking into the allegations. Although the
Office of Internal Affairs managed the inquiry cases and the special
agents and some lieutenants were from the Office of Internal Affairs,
some of the lieutenants assigned to the task force came from various
prisons throughout the State and were specifically assigned to this
project. The Office of Internal Affairs submitted the resulting final
inquiry reports to the departmental official who had the authority to hire
and discipline staff under his or her signature authority. For purposes of
this report, except for three cases, the Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility warden was the hiring authority and made the decisions
concerning the resolution of the cases.2
The department informed the Office of the Inspector General (the
OIG) that, although the department began receiving the declarations in
January 2020, its investigators did not begin their actual inquiry work
on the cases until June 2020. From June 2020 through July 2021, the
investigators completed 257 staff misconduct inquiry cases.3
1. Armstrong v. Newsom, 475 F.Supp.3d 1038 (N.D. Cal. July 2020).
2. For purposes of this report, hereafter, we will refer to the hiring authority as the
warden, even though, of the 257 cases, there were three cases decided by another
departmental official.
3. In July 2021 and August 2021, the Office of Internal Affairs opened additional staff
misconduct inquiry cases pursuant to this project. The OIG is not monitoring those cases.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

2 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The OIG learned of the project in August 2020 and immediately
assembled its own team of attorneys to monitor the cases. From August
2020 through July 2021, OIG attorneys monitored 204 of the 257 inquiry
cases. We fully monitored 155 of the 204 cases, personally attending
interviews and evaluating the final inquiry reports. OIG attorneys
also reviewed related documentary evidence, photographs, interview
recordings and other recordings, and final inquiry reports in connection
with the 155 fully monitored cases. We partially monitored 49 cases:
This means we began to monitor the cases, but stopped our monitoring
after we determined the deadline to take disciplinary action against the
involved staff members had already expired in those cases.
For each of the 204 cases we monitored, we assessed the performance of
departmental staff and provided an overall rating. We used this rating to
evaluate the department’s overall performance in completing the inquiry
case: We assessed the department’s processing of the case, including its
adherence to deadlines and its timeliness in completing the case, as well
as the quality of the inquiry work performed by the investigator. Our
assessment methodology for this rating is based on the OIG attorneys’
answers to 21 performance-related questions for each case. We assessed
the overall work in each inquiry case as superior, satisfactory, or poor.
We found that in 186 of the 204 cases we monitored, or 91 percent, the
department’s overall performance was poor in completing the inquiry
cases. In the remaining 18 cases, or 9 percent, the department’s overall
performance was satisfactory. In no cases did the department receive a
superior rating.
During our monitoring, we identified four key concerns with how the
department conducted the staff misconduct inquiry cases. First, we
concluded the department delayed in completing the cases, allowing the
deadline for completion of the cases to expire in most of the cases.
Second, we found that the overall quality of the investigators’ work
in completing the inquiry cases was deficient, especially in how they
conducted interviews, collected evidence, and prepared reports. In the
155 cases we fully monitored, we concluded the quality of investigators’
inquiry work was poor in 96 of the 155 of the fully monitored cases,
or 62 percent. In the remaining 59 of the 155 cases, or 38 percent, we
assessed the quality of the investigators’ interviews, evidence collection,
and report preparation as satisfactory.
Third, we observed, in several cases, investigators compromised the
confidentiality of the cases by conducting interviews in inappropriate
locations or by divulging unnecessary information to witnesses or
subjects during the cases.
Finally, we found that the person responsible for making decisions
concerning the inquiry cases—the warden in all but three cases—made

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 3

inappropriate decisions concerning many of the cases. The warden
reached inappropriate decisions by making conclusions in cases in which
there was not enough evidence for him to make a decision regarding the
case; by not thoroughly reviewing all available evidence before making
a decision; or by deciding on a case in which he was not an impartial
decision-maker.
Overall, the department completed staff misconduct inquiry cases for
this project that were delayed, poorly conducted, and compromised,
and the warden made many inappropriate decisions. Consequently,
as a whole, the department did not appropriately address the staff
misconduct allegations submitted by the disabled incarcerated persons at
the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility during the special project in
2020 and 2021.
In January 2022, the department implemented emergency regulations
revising its statewide process for reviewing incarcerated persons’
allegations of staff misconduct. The inquiry cases we reviewed for this
report were completed by the department before it implemented the
January 2022 emergency regulations. From our understanding of the
regulations, complaints of staff misconduct that incarcerated persons
file in federal court would be subject to the department’s new statewide
staff misconduct inquiry process. We will soon begin monitoring the
department’s implementation of this new process and will report our
observations of the new process in future reports.

Scope and Methodology
The OIG monitored the work of the investigators in two phases. In
the first phase, we fully monitored all 133 staff misconduct inquiry
cases that the Office of Internal Affairs opened in 2020 as part of this
project. During this phase, with very limited exceptions, our attorneys
personally monitored every interview and the other related field work
that investigators completed.
In the second phase, we monitored the staff misconduct inquiry cases
the Office of Internal Affairs opened from January 2021 through June
2021, some of which were closed as late as July 2021. During this second
phase, we partially monitored 49 cases and fully monitored 22 cases. In
the 49 partially monitored cases, we determined that the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired, and we therefore decided not to expend
our resources in continuing to monitor those cases. We decided to fully
monitor a 25 percent random sample of the remaining staff misconduct
inquiry cases the Office of Internal Affairs opened from January through
June 2021, or 22 cases. Accordingly, from August 2020 through July 2021,
we fully monitored 155 cases: all 133 inquiry cases the Office of Internal
Affairs opened in 2020, and also, 22 inquiry cases the Office of Internal

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

4 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Affairs opened in the first six months of 2021.4 The Office of Internal
Affairs continued to open new inquiry cases for this project in July 2021
and August 2021, but we did not and are not monitoring those cases.
In addition to monitoring interviews and other field work at the Richard
J. Donovan Correctional Facility and at other prisons throughout the
State, we analyzed the resulting final inquiry reports produced by the
Office of Internal Affairs. This included reviewing the interview and
other recordings as well as other evidence, such as documentation,
pertaining to the cases. We also received and reviewed memoranda from
the warden concerning his review and resolution of the cases, including
his analysis for each case as to whether there existed a reasonable belief
of staff misconduct.
To accomplish our assessment of the 155 cases we fully monitored, we
analyzed the relevant dates of the inquiry cases to include, but not be
limited to, the assignment date of the investigators; the date of the final
interview; the completion dates of the inquiry case; the deadlines to take
disciplinary action; and the date of the warden’s decision as to each case.
In addition, we analyzed the number of days between certain events, such
as the number of days between the start of each inquiry and the date
the Office of Internal Affairs completed and submitted the final inquiry
report. We also conducted a qualitative analysis of the inquiry work
conducted by all investigators—including their interviews, evidence
collection, and report preparation—for the 155 cases we fully monitored.
To complete our assessment of the 155 fully monitored cases,
OIG attorneys answered a series of 21 performance-related assessment
questions for each fully monitored case, presented in the table on the
next page. For the 49 partially monitored cases, OIG attorneys answered
only the questions encompassing the processing of the cases within
required time frames. (See Table 1, next page.)
Our assessment resulted in an overall rating of superior, satisfactory, or
poor for each of the 204 cases we monitored. For the 155 cases we fully
monitored, the overall rating consisted of our conclusion regarding the
Office of Internal Affairs’ overall handling of the inquiry case, including
the timeliness of the processing of the cases and our conclusion as to
the quality of the inquiry, including our assessment as to the interviews,
evidence collection, and report preparation.
Finally, for the 49 investigations we partially monitored, we reviewed
the relevant dates of the deadline to take disciplinary action, the inquiry
commencement date, the inquiry completion date, and the dates of the
warden’s decision as to each case. However, because, for the most part,
4. The investigators began conducting interviews in June 2020. Although OIG attorneys
did not begin to personally monitor interviews until August 2020, OIG attorneys reviewed
all interview recordings for the 155 fully monitored cases, even for those interviews the
attorneys did not personally monitor.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 5

we did not monitor the interviews for those cases and because we did
not review any of the final inquiry reports for those cases, we did not
conduct a qualitative review of the investigators’ work for the 49 partially
monitored cases. The OIG attorneys’ assessments of the monitored cases
are reflected in case summaries, which have been incorporated herein as
the Appendix to this report.
Table 1. The 21 Assessment Questions

I Number

Question

1

Did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to finalizing the inquiry plan?

2

Did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?

3

Did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?

4

Did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews?

5

Did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?

6

Did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary and
other forensic evidence?

7

Did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?

8

Did the Office of Internal Affairs timely complete the inquiry report after
completion of the last interview?

9

Did the investigator prepare a final inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

10

Did the investigator address material contradictions in the final inquiry report?

11

Did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the final inquiry report?

12

Did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the final
inquiry report?

13

Did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the final
inquiry report?

14

Did the investigator complete and submit the final inquiry report before the
deadline to take disciplinary action?

15

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufficient time for the hiring
authority to submit a request for additional inquiry if necessary?

16

Did the department handle the case with due diligence?

17

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value
to the OIG?

18

Did the investigator adequately consult with the OIG?

19

Did the investigator have any substantive off-the-record conversations with a
witness or subject before, during or after the interview?

20

Did the investigator provide an admonishment/advisement at the beginning
of each interview?

21

Did the investigator provide an admonishment concerning confidentiality at
the end of each interview?

I

Source: The Office of the Inspector General.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

6 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 7

Monitoring Results
We identified four key concerns with the department’s handling of the
staff misconduct inquiry cases at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility. First, we discovered departmental staff delayed in completing
the cases, allowing the deadline for completion of the cases to expire
in most of the cases. Second, we found that the overall quality of the
investigators’ work in most cases was deficient: The investigators
conducted inadequate interviews, did not properly collect evidence, and
did not prepare thorough and accurate reports. Third, we determined,
in several cases, investigators compromised the confidentiality of
cases, mostly by conducting interviews in inappropriate locations or by
inappropriately divulging information to either witnesses or subjects
of the cases. Finally, we concluded the warden made inappropriate
decisions concerning the resolution of more than half the inquiry cases
we fully monitored. The decisions were inappropriate because the
warden did not have enough evidence to reach a conclusion; he did not
thoroughly review the evidence in a case before reaching a conclusion; or
he made a decision in a case in which he was not an impartial decisionmaker. Overall, by not conducting thorough, appropriate, and complete
inquiry cases, the department failed to appropriately address most of the
staff misconduct allegations made by incarcerated persons.

The Department Delayed in Completing Cases
The department was time-barred from taking disciplinary action in
88 percent of the 204 cases. In 173 cases, the department received the
declarations prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action. However,
in 120 of those cases, or 69 percent, the Office of Internal Affairs did not
complete the inquiry case until after the deadline for taking disciplinary
action expired. Of the 53 inquiry cases the Office of Internal Affairs did
complete before the deadline for taking disciplinary action, in 32 of those
cases, or 19 percent of the 173 cases, the Office of Internal Affairs did not
provide its final report to the hiring authority with enough time for the
hiring authority to reasonably be able to take any disciplinary action.
In addition, the department’s delays impacted the evidentiary value of
the inquiry work. Witnesses in many cases could not remember details of
incidents that occurred long before their interviews. Finally, we observed
two factors that significantly contributed to the overall delays. First, the
Office of Internal Affairs substantially delayed assigning investigators to
conduct the inquiry cases. Second, once the investigators completed their
final interviews, we observed substantial delays by the Office of Internal
Affairs in completing reports and providing them to the warden.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

8 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

“Justice delayed
is justice
denied.”
—William E. Gladstone
(1809–1898)

The Department Did Not Complete the Inquiry Cases Before the
Deadline to Take Disciplinary Action in Most Cases
The Office of Internal Affairs did not complete the staff misconduct
inquiry cases prior to the deadline for taking disciplinary action against
the staff members who allegedly committed misconduct in 69 percent
of the cases where they had the opportunity to do so. “Justice delayed
is justice denied.”5 Timely completion of the inquiry process is critical
to the employee discipline process because discipline must by imposed
by a particular deadline. Pursuant to Government Code section 3304 (d),
a department can generally only impose disciplinary action against
peace officer employees within one year after the date the department
discovered the alleged misconduct. As to the cases the OIG monitored,
with three possible exceptions, all subjects of the inquiry cases we
monitored were peace officer employees.6
Once the inquiry case concluded, and if the warden determined there
existed a reasonable belief of staff misconduct, the warden was required
to refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit to
request an investigation or for approval to take direct action to address
the alleged misconduct without an investigation as soon as is reasonably
practical. Postponement or delay of an inquiry case steadily chipped
away at the remaining time available for the Office of Internal Affairs to
conduct a subsequent investigation. In addition, delays in conducting the
inquiry case reduced the amount of time for the warden to analyze the
evidence gathered, assess an appropriate penalty, and serve the employee
with a disciplinary action, if the situation so warranted.
In 173 of the 204 monitored cases, the department received the
declarations containing the staff misconduct allegations before the
deadline to take disciplinary action expired. As to those cases in which
the department received the declarations containing the staff misconduct
allegations before the deadline to take disciplinary action, the Office of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry work and submit the final
inquiry report to the warden before the deadline to take disciplinary
action in 120 cases, or 69 percent.
In 31 of the 204 monitored cases, the department received the
declarations containing the staff misconduct allegations after the
deadline to take disciplinary action expired. Nevertheless, the
department decided to still conduct an inquiry case for those allegations,
even if it was barred from taking disciplinary action.
The Office of Internal Affairs’ failure to submit the final inquiry
reports and supporting materials to the warden before the deadline
to take disciplinary action prevented the hiring authority from taking
5. Late-19th-century maxim; William E. Gladstone (1809–1898), from the Louisiana Law
Journal in 1842, and in a speech as British Prime Minister in 1868.
6. Two subjects were nonpeace officers, and a third subject was “unknown staff.”

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 9

appropriate disciplinary action, if any, as to the staff members who
allegedly committed misconduct in 120 of 173 cases. The department
barred itself from taking disciplinary action in 69 percent of cases by
failing to complete the inquiry cases in a timely manner.
There Were Some Cases in Which, Even Though the Department Did
Not Allow the Deadline to Take Disciplinary Action to Expire, the
Department Did Not Complete the Inquiry Cases in Sufficient Time for
the Warden to Return the Cases If Further Inquiry Work Were Needed
In 32 of the 173 monitored cases, or 19 percent, even though the Office of
Internal Affairs did not allow the deadline to take disciplinary action to
expire, the Office of Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry cases
within 60 days of the deadline to take disciplinary action. These cases
arrived on the warden’s desk with little or no time for him to evaluate the
final inquiry report and return it for further inquiry work, if needed, or
for him to refer the case to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake
Unit for an investigation or approval to take direct disciplinary action
against the staff member.
In these instances, even had the Office of Internal Affairs submitted its
final inquiry report to the warden before the deadline to take disciplinary
action, if the warden referred the case to the Office of Internal Affairs
for an investigation, there would still need to be time subsequently
allotted for an Office of Internal Affairs special agent to conduct an
investigation. Time would also need to be reserved for the warden to
review the investigative report and supporting materials or to serve the
staff member with a disciplinary action, if appropriate. Moreover, the
time needed for potential executive review should also be considered
in these cases, a process whereby a department attorney or we could
elevate a warden’s unreasonable employee discipline decision to a
departmental executive.
An example of such a delay involved a case in which on April 29, 2020,
the department learned that a counselor allegedly told an incarcerated
person that another incarcerated person had been convicted of sex
crimes against children, which was not true. The department did not
assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
August 7, 2020, three months and nine days thereafter. The deadline to
take disciplinary action was April 29, 2021, but the Office of Internal
Affairs did not submit its final inquiry report to the warden until
March 23, 2021, one month and seven days before the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The warden determined there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct and referred the case to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Central Intake Unit. Subsequently, the Office of Internal Affairs’
Central Intake Unit approved an administrative investigation. An
Office of Internal Affairs special agent then conducted a rushed, 14-day
investigation due to the impending deadline to take disciplinary action.
The Office of Internal Affairs submitted its investigative report to the
hiring authority, a regional parole administrator, on the day before the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

10 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

deadline to take disciplinary action. In arriving at her decision not to
sustain the allegations, the regional parole administrator admitted she
had not reviewed the interview recordings because the Office of Internal
Affairs had only provided the investigative materials to her on the day
before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. By not providing
the final inquiry report and supporting materials to the warden or
other hiring authority until 60 days or fewer before the deadline to take
disciplinary action, the Office of Internal Affairs negatively impacted
the warden’s or other hiring authority’s ability to thoroughly review
subsequent investigative materials as well as for related processes, such
as an executive review, to take place.
The Delays Hindered Investigators’ Efforts to Gather Key Evidence in
Some Cases

“How am I supposed
to remember
an incident
that was
two years ago?”
—Asked by an officer who was
a subject of an inquiry case
to an investigator

“How come you
waited so long?”
—Asked by
an incarcerated person
to an investigator

In an issue closely related to the department’s delays in completing the
inquiry cases, we found that in many of the delayed cases, investigators
encountered a diminished ability to gather evidence. Investigators
should promptly interview witnesses, and search for and collect relevant
evidence. However, in the delayed cases we monitored, several witnesses
reported they could no longer recall relevant facts. In 91 of the 155 fully
monitored cases, or 58 percent, at least one witness during the inquiry
said they could not recall, or could not remember the information, when
the investigator asked the witness a relevant question.
For example, in a case involving allegations that an officer allegedly
threatened to harm an incarcerated person and that the officer was part
of a gang of officers called the Green Wall, the officer who was the subject
of an inquiry asked an investigator, “How am I supposed to remember an
incident that was two years ago?”
Another example involved an incarcerated person who alleged staff
assaulted him twice and encouraged him to follow through with a suicide
attempt. In the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted
the allegation, the incarcerated person told the investigator he had
known the answers to the questions posed to him, but simply could not
remember them anymore. He asked the investigator, “How come you
waited so long?”
The Office of Internal Affairs’ failure to timely complete inquiry cases
resulted in the warden not having the most comprehensive information
available to make decisions concerning whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct.
In Most of the Monitored Cases, the Department Significantly
Delayed Assigning Investigators to Conduct Inquiries Into Staff
Misconduct Allegations
We found that, in most cases, the department delayed in assigning
investigators. For a proper inquiry of staff misconduct allegations

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 11

to occur, we believe the department should assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry as soon as possible to facilitate the interviewing of
witnesses while their recollections of the events are clear and closer
in time to the event, and also to allow the expeditious collection of as
much relevant information as possible. Furthermore, generally, per
Government Code section 3304 (d), a warden or other hiring authority is
required to impose disciplinary action against peace officer employees
within one year of the date the alleged misconduct is discovered. If the
warden determined a reasonable belief of staff misconduct existed, the
inquiry must be followed by a referral to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Central Intake Unit for a subsequent investigation or for approval to take
direct disciplinary action before discipline could be imposed. Since the
investigation must typically be completed within a year of the allegation
becoming known to the department, these ubiquitous delays helped run
out the clock on imposing discipline in most cases for this project.
To that end, when the Office of Internal Affairs conducts investigations
of staff misconduct, a manager is generally required to assign an
investigator to the case within 10 days of receiving the allegations.7 In
this instance, the Office of Internal Affairs assigned investigators to
conduct staff misconduct inquiry cases, precursors to investigations. For
this project, after review by departmental management staff, an Office
of Internal Affairs supervisor assigned each case to an investigator. For
purposes of our evaluation, we determined that there was a delayed
assignment if the department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry within 30 days of learning of the staff misconduct allegations.
Despite the necessity of the department promptly assigning investigators
to conduct staff misconduct inquiry cases, we found in 145 of the 155 fully
monitored cases, or 94 percent, the department delayed assigning an
investigator to a case for 30 days or more after the department discovered
the alleged misconduct.
As to the 155 fully monitored cases, the department took an average
of 203 days to assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry case
after discovering the staff misconduct allegations. We also found in
15 of the 155 fully monitored cases, the department did not assign an
investigator for more than a year, thus barring disciplinary action
before the investigator could conduct the first interview. For example,
in one case, the department learned of the alleged staff misconduct on
February 4, 2020. However, the Office of Internal Affairs did not assign
an investigator to the case until March 29, 2021, one year, one month,
and 26 days thereafter. Two other cases also involved a delay in assigning
an investigator for over a year after the department’s discovery of the
allegations, namely, 374 days each.

7. DOM Section 31140.16.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

12 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The delay in assigning investigators to conduct the inquiry cases
contributed significantly to the problem of the department not timely
completing the cases and being barred in many cases from taking
disciplinary action because the case was completed after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had passed.
The Office of Internal Affairs Often Delayed Closing Cases From
the Date of the Investigator’s Last Interview to the Date It Delivered
the Corresponding Inquiry Report and Supporting Materials to
the Warden
We also determined the Office of Internal Affairs significantly delayed
closing cases and prolonged the period from the date of an investigator’s
final interview to the date the Office of Internal Affairs delivered
the corresponding inquiry report and supporting materials to the
warden. We considered a report delayed if the Office of Internal Affairs
completed it and submitted it to the warden 30 days or more after an
investigator completed his or her final inquiry interview.
Pursuant to the Department Operations Manual, Section 31140.30,
internal investigations “shall be conducted with due diligence and
completed in a timely manner in accordance with the law, applicable
MOU’s [sic], and the OIA’s Investigator’s Field Guide.”8 Even though
the Office of Internal Affairs conducted staff misconduct inquiry cases,
precursors to investigations, the same principles of timeliness should
apply, given that the inquiry work will be used by the Office of Internal
Affairs in subsequent investigations and reviewed by a warden or other
hiring authority.
Investigators completed interviews in 143 of the 155 fully monitored
cases. In 126 of those 143 cases, or 88 percent, the Office of Internal
Affairs delayed in submitting its final inquiry report to the warden
by 30 days or more after the final inquiry interview. The Office of
Internal Affairs averaged 105 days from the date of the investigator’s
final interview to the date the Office of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its final inquiry report to the warden.
For example, in one case, after an incarcerated person allegedly assaulted
officers, an officer allegedly retaliated by issuing a false rules violation
report against the incarcerated person. The officer also allegedly failed to
conduct a urinalysis test. The investigator completed the final interview
on September 3, 2020, but the Office of Internal Affairs did not complete
and submit its final inquiry report to the warden until April 21, 2021,
seven months and 18 days later. In a second example, staff allegedly
threatened the safety of the incarcerated person on two occasions. The
investigator completed the final interview on September 21, 2020, but the

8. DOM, 2021.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 13

Office of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its final report
until May 21, 2021, eight months later.
Given that the warden had only one year to take disciplinary action
from the date of discovery of the alleged misconduct of a peace officer,
the Office of Internal Affairs’ lengthy delays in closing cases undercut
the warden’s ability to address the alleged staff misconduct allegations
by either leaving the warden a short amount of time to review the case
before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired, or eliminating the
possibility of discipline entirely because the deadline to take disciplinary
action had already expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

14 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The Investigators Poorly Conducted Interviews,
Collected Evidence, and Produced Reports
One of our key findings was that the quality of the investigators’
work in conducting most of the inquiry cases was poor. There were
three significant problems: poorly conducted interviews, improper or
incomplete collection of evidence, and incomplete or inaccurate inquiry
reports. Of the 155 fully monitored cases, we assessed the quality of
investigators’ inquiry work as poor in 96 of the cases, or 62 percent. In the
remaining 59 of the 155 cases, or 38 percent, we assessed the quality of
the investigators’ work as satisfactory. In our opinion, none of the cases
merited a superior rating.
Investigators Conducted Deficient Interviews
Our monitoring revealed that investigators generally performed
poorly in conducting interviews. Examples of these problems included
investigators who failed to prepare for interviews; did not ask relevant
questions during interviews; engaged in material, off-the-record
conversations with witnesses or subjects; or used other inappropriate
interviewing techniques. These deficiencies contributed heavily to our
assessment that the quality of the investigators’ inquiry work was poor in
most cases.
We found that investigators frequently failed to adequately prepare for
interviews. Advance preparation is a critical component of the interview
process. An investigator must lay the groundwork for a case by seeking
out and examining documents or other evidence that will assist the
investigator in identifying appropriate witnesses, correctly identifying
the individual or individuals who may have committed misconduct, and
familiarizing him- or herself with both the layout of incident scenes and
the applicable policies and procedures at issue in a case. Of 143 of the
155 fully monitored cases in which investigators conducted interviews,
we identified 27 instances of investigators who did not adequately
prepare for an inquiry. For example, in one case, an incarcerated person
who alleged an officer threatened to harm the incarcerated person and
shoved the incarcerated person’s walker into his body submitted to a
video-recorded interview concerning the allegation on the day of the
incident. Such interviews are required to be conducted, according to
the department’s use-of-force policy, whenever an incarcerated person
complains of unreasonable use of force or has sustained a requisite
injury.9 The Office of Internal Affairs later assigned an investigator
to conduct an inquiry into the allegation for purposes of this project.
9. DOM Section 51020.17.3 provides, in pertinent part: “A video recorded interview of an
inmate shall be conducted…under the following circumstances:
The inmate has sustained a serious bodily injury or great bodily injury that could have
been cause by a staff use of force (CDCR Form 3013-1).
The inmate has made an allegation of unnecessary or excessive use of force
(CDCR Form 3013-2).”

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 15

However, the investigator did not obtain or review a copy of the
recording of the interview conducted on the day of the incident. Before
interviewing witnesses, especially a complainant, it is important for the
investigator to review the prior statements a witness made. In this case,
not only did the investigator not obtain or review the recording of the
prior interview before his interview of the incarcerated person, but the
investigator did not even include a copy of the recording as an exhibit
to the final inquiry report. It was only obtained by the Office of Internal
Affairs after the OIG requested a copy of the recording.
We also found that investigators often failed to ask relevant questions
during interviews—thereby failing to gather potentially relevant
evidence—in more than half the cases we fully monitored. When an
investigator conducts an interview, arguably the most important aspect is
that he or she asks all relevant questions of the person being interviewed.
Any inquiry into staff misconduct allegations requires a thorough and
rigorous interview process to ensure a complete presentation of pertinent
facts. Without such interviews, a warden or other reviewer cannot
be expected to adequately assess whether a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct exists. The investigator should be prepared with questions in
advance, but should also be able and willing to deviate from any prepared
list of questions by engaging in active listening.
Instead, of the 143 fully monitored cases in which investigators
conducted interviews, we found that the investigators did not ask
all relevant questions in 74 of the 143 of the cases, or 52 percent.
Investigators’ failure to ask relevant questions led to inquiry cases in
which there was a failure to gather all potentially relevant evidence.
For example, in one case involving an allegation that staff assaulted an
incarcerated person, an investigator failed to ask an incarcerated person
some of the most relevant questions pertaining to that type of case: those
asking for a description of the involved incarcerated person and the staff
who were involved or witnessed the alleged assault. Without gathering
all potentially relevant evidence, the warden could not make appropriate
decisions concerning the staff misconduct allegations in many cases.
In another example, an incarcerated person alleged that officers failed to
assist another incarcerated person who requested help after intentionally
cutting himself during a suicide attempt. Investigators interviewed
incarcerated persons who lived in the housing unit on the date of the
incident. One of the incarcerated persons stated he was familiar with
a certain officer because the officer regularly worked in the housing
unit, but the investigator did not ask enough additional questions to
establish the identity of the officer or other officers allegedly involved
in the incident. Even when the incarcerated person said he knew the
faces of the officers involved in the incident, the investigator did not
pose further questions to the incarcerated person or display photographs
for the incarcerated person to view in an attempt to learn to whom the
incarcerated person was referring. When the incarcerated person told the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

16 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

investigator that, after he reported the incident, staff retaliated against
both him and another incarcerated person, the investigator did not
ask for the identity of the other incarcerated person or for the identity
of those who retaliated against them. Finally, the investigator allowed
the incarcerated person to give ambiguous or nonverbal answers to
questions, without seeking clarification. The incarcerated person often
answered, “uh huh,” and, at one point, gestured with his hands that the
injured incarcerated person had “blood up here,” yet the investigator did
not ask the incarcerated person to explain what the gesture meant nor
describe the gesture for the benefit of the recording.
Furthermore, aside from failing to ask relevant questions, we also
found that investigators used other ineffective interviewing techniques.
Ineffective interviewing techniques included not asking open-ended
questions; asking leading questions; not laying the foundation for
areas of questioning or for the use of exhibits; not making proper
identifications for the records; or exhibiting bias. Effective interviewing
techniques include asking open-ended questions, not leading questions;
laying the foundation for areas of questioning or for the use of exhibits;
making proper identifications for the record; and not exhibiting bias.
We found of 143 of the 155 fully monitored cases in which investigators
conducted interviews, investigators used ineffective interviewing
techniques in 80 cases, or 56 percent. Once again, the investigators’
failure to use effective techniques led to completing inquiry cases
without benefit of the correct information or without the most
available information.
For example, in one case, staff allegedly referred to an incarcerated
person as a “snitch,” a serious allegation given the inherent danger of
having a reputation, true or not, of being an informant in a correctional
setting. The incarcerated person also alleged an officer announced the
incarcerated person was meeting with attorneys who were representing
members of a class action lawsuit against the department. The
investigator interviewed multiple incarcerated persons as part of the
inquiry. During the interview of one incarcerated person, the investigator
did not ask questions to lay the foundation for several interview
topics. For instance, the investigator began the interview by asking the
incarcerated person when he started working on a prison yard, without
first establishing for the record whether he worked on a prison yard.
Also, the investigator referred to documents that were not described for
the interview recording. During an interview of a second incarcerated
person, the investigator served as a translator because the incarcerated
person did not speak English. Some of the conversation between the
investigator and the second incarcerated person was either not translated
into English or was only paraphrased. During the interview of a third
incarcerated person, the investigator interrupted the incarcerated person
multiple times while the incarcerated person was speaking. Finally,
during an interview of a fourth incarcerated person, the investigator
responded to the incarcerated person’s assertion that he knew an officer

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 17

had committed misconduct by saying, “You’re thinking that, but you
don’t think that . . . she’s never done that before.”
In another case, an incarcerated person who was being interviewed
asked the investigator repeatedly for the name of the incarcerated person
who made the allegations. The investigator tried to avoid answering,
but rather than refuse to divulge the name of the complainant, the
investigator invented a fake name and falsely told the incarcerated
person that such was the name of the complainant. Curiously, the last
name the investigator devised was the same last name as the incarcerated
person being interviewed.
In a third case, we monitored an interview conducted by an investigator
of a sergeant concerning the sergeant’s alleged misconduct. At one point
during the interview, the investigator apologized to the sergeant and
said, “I got [sic] to ask all these questions. Sorry.” By apologizing to the
sergeant for asking questions, the investigator essentially apologized
for doing his job. Even if was unintentional, the investigator implicitly
communicated to the sergeant that the interview, if not the inquiry as a
whole, was a pointless inconvenience to be endured, rather than the factfinding mission it was meant to be.
Finally, in another case, we observed an investigator congratulate a
sergeant who had recently been promoted from the position of officer
to that of sergeant. In this case, an incarcerated person alleged the
sergeant, when he had been an officer, ran toward him and yelled for
him to return to his cell after the incarcerated person approached him to
request a shower. The incarcerated person further alleged, the next day,
the officer yelled and threatened him. The investigator questioned the
sergeant about the incidents and, near the conclusion of the interview,
asked the sergeant how he felt when he found out the incarcerated
person’s rules violation report, which the sergeant had issued to the
incarcerated person for committing misconduct, was reduced from
a serious rules violation to a counseling chrono, which is a less serious
disciplinary violation for an incarcerated person.10 When the sergeant
answered he did not recall that happening, but he was aware a counseling
chrono would remain in the incarcerated person’s file, thereby creating
a “paper trail,” the investigator told him, “And that’s why you promoted
to sergeant.” The investigator proceeded to commend the sergeant for
“doing [his] homework” and for his promotion. This exchange was out of
place for an interview of this nature. Although cordiality is appropriate
for all interviews, including for those in which the interviewee is the
subject of a staff misconduct case, interviews should be conducted with
the gravity and decorum befitting the occasion. By praising the

10. An incarcerated person who commits misconduct is subject to different disciplinary
actions, including a rules violation report, which may lead to a loss of custody credits, or a
counseling chrono, which is a memorandum placed in the incarcerated person’s file, noting
the misconduct and the counseling to correct the misconduct.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

18 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

sergeant’s answer during the interview as if the sergeant had successfully
passed a test, the investigator risked an appearance of favoritism or
impartiality.
In addition to determining investigators did not properly prepare for
interviews, did not ask relevant questions, and used other ineffective
interviewing techniques, we also found that investigators often did not
capture all material information on interview recordings. Information
gathered during an investigation is of little evidentiary value if it is not
recorded or documented. Answers given during interviews should be
either audio- or video-recorded, so the information can be accurately
summarized in an inquiry report and reviewers of the report can
review the source evidence, namely, the recording itself. Otherwise,
the information may be inaccurately repeated, or worse, forever lost.
Furthermore, substantive conversations that occur off-the-record may
give rise to the appearance of bias, favoritism, or other impropriety.
Therefore, investigators should avoid off-the-record conversations
as much as possible. However, of the 143 cases in which investigators
conducted interviews, investigators failed to capture relevant information
on recording devices in 28 of the cases, or 20 percent.
For example, in one case, an investigator interviewed a lieutenant
about an allegation officers had pushed an incarcerated person out of a
wheelchair. After the incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct
grievance, he stated a sergeant interviewed him about his allegations.
According to the incarcerated person, a lieutenant and one of the officers
who allegedly pushed the incarcerated person out of the wheelchair
were present during the interview. When questioned by an investigator
during an interview for an inquiry case for this project, the lieutenant
told the investigator he could not recall whether any of the staff members
other than he had been present for the interview. When the investigator
took a break in the middle of the interview and turned off the recording
device he was using for the interview, the lieutenant stated he had more
information, and transportation officers escorted the incarcerated person
away from the program officer area after the incarcerated person’s
interview, but they did not participate in the interview itself. Despite
receiving the clarifying information, the investigator did not ensure the
new and different information was thereafter captured on the recording
device. This was especially concerning because we observed that the
investigator held a private, closed-door conversation with the lieutenant
immediately after the interview concluded.
Generally, the investigators performed deficient interviews by not
properly preparing for interviews, failing to ask relevant questions, not
using effective interviewing techniques, and not capturing relevant
information on the interview recordings. As such, the investigators failed
to gather or record potentially important information necessary for a
warden, or any other reviewer of the inquiry cases, to consider when
evaluating the staff misconduct allegations.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 19

Investigators Failed to Search for and Collect Relevant Evidence
Aside from our finding that investigators conducted poor interviews
and therefore failed to capture potentially relevant information, our
monitoring also reflected that the investigators failed to adequately
collect other types of evidence. A staff misconduct inquiry case entails a
fact-finding process. Therefore, it is necessary when conducting inquiry
cases for an investigator to not only interview witnesses, but also to
gather other relevant evidence regarding the allegation. We encountered
cases in which investigators did not search for and collect relevant
evidence, such as written statements concerning the incident, prior
staff misconduct grievances or complaints, bed assignment histories
for incarcerated persons, employee rosters and schedules, or applicable
departmental or prison policies or procedures. For an investigator to
conduct a thorough inquiry, the investigator should not only obtain this
evidence, but also attach it or include it in the final inquiry report for the
warden or other reviewer to consider in arriving at a decision concerning
the allegation.
During this project, we found in 14 of the 155 fully monitored cases, or
9 percent, investigators failed to collect evidence germane to the inquiry
or exhibited poor evidence collection techniques. The investigators’
failure to search for and collect relevant evidence led to the warden’s not
having the most comprehensive information available to make a decision
concerning the cases. For example, in two cases involving allegations
that officers caused incarcerated persons to be struck with cell doors,
the investigators failed to search for and collect evidence that control
booth officers at the prison were using pieces of wood to hold open the
electronic levers or buttons to open multiple cell doors simultaneously.
In some cases in which an incarcerated person was struck with a cell
door, the control booth officer used a wood piece to open or close
multiple doors simultaneously. The investigator seemingly did not collect
this evidence during the inquiry because it was not documented in his
inquiry report. We learned of the existence of this evidence only after
the warden reviewed the final inquiry reports, submitted a memorandum
concerning his decisions on the cases, and disclosed photographic
evidence concerning the pieces of wood that he either discovered or were
known to him, but which had escaped the attention of the investigators.
Once again, by apparently not collecting relevant evidence and including
it in the inquiry report, the investigators risked not presenting the
information necessary for a warden or other reviewer to consider when
evaluating the cases.
In Many Cases, the Investigators Produced Poorly Written
Inquiry Reports
Another concern we found was that investigators frequently prepared
deficient inquiry reports. At the conclusion of each inquiry case, the
investigator prepared a report, which the Office of Internal Affairs then
submitted it to the warden. A proper inquiry report is one in which an

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

20 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

investigator adequately summarized interviews, addressed allegations
and material contradictions, and included appropriate exhibits, such as
documentary evidence, recordings, and relevant policies and procedures.
Without these components, the warden would not have the appropriate
information to make a decision concerning the allegations. However, in
60 of the 155 cases we fully monitored, or 38 percent, we found the final
inquiry reports were deficient in one of the respects described above.
For example, in one case, the investigator interviewed an incarcerated
person who alleged that an officer denied him medical assistance because
he did not think the incarcerated person required it. When medical
staff attempted to examine the incarcerated person, the officer allegedly
ordered the medical staff not to examine the incarcerated person because
the incarcerated person was malingering. To identify the officer in
question, the investigator interviewed the incarcerated person and asked
him questions about the officer’s identity. The investigator presented six
photographs of staff members to the incarcerated person to determine
whether the incarcerated person could identify anyone depicted in the
photographs as the officer who allegedly committed the misconduct. The
investigator not only failed to include the photographs as exhibits in the
final inquiry report, but also failed to even mention in the report that
the incarcerated person stated he could not identify anyone among the
photographs shown to him. Compounding the problem, the investigator
did not include a photograph of the officer in question among the six
photographs the investigator used or any photograph resembling the
officer. By submitting this deficient inquiry report, the investigator did
not present an accurate or complete picture of the state of the evidence
for the warden to consider when deciding on the allegations.
In another case, an incarcerated person alleged, among other things,
that an officer allegedly told him to “shut the [expletive] up” when
the incarcerated person requested a shower. The incarcerated person
also alleged that the officer threatened him with bodily harm if the
incarcerated person filed a complaint against the officer for denying him
a shower. The investigator interviewed a second incarcerated person who
was a witness. The second incarcerated person told the investigator he
heard the officer say, “Shut the [expletive] up,” or words to that effect,
on at least one occasion to the first incarcerated person who made
the complaint, but the second incarcerated person was unsure of the
date. When asked whether the officer in question ever acted outside
of policy, the second incarcerated person answered in the affirmative
and volunteered some examples, such as the officer going into cells and
breaking television sets. Rather than ask the second incarcerated person
to elaborate, the investigator abruptly ended the interview.
When we received the final inquiry report, we noticed that the above
information was conspicuously absent from the synopsis of the
incarcerated person’s interview. The report summarized the interview
with the incarcerated person, and read, in part, as follows:

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 21

“Inmate [Witness] affirmed he was housed of [sic]
facility C, building 12, for about a year and a half
and was familiar with Inmate [Complainant]. Inmate
[Witness] characterized Inmate [Complainant] as
a “problem person sometimes.” Inmate [Witness]
said he knew Officer [Subject] and characterized
him as “[f--ed] up [sic].” Inmate [Witness]
said he could not recall any interactions on
12/16/2018, involving Officer [Subject] and Inmate
[Complainant]. Inmate [witness] believed Inmate
[Complainant] and Officer [Subject] had a history
of personal issues between them. Inmate [Witness]
believed Officer [Subject] was capable of carring
[sic] out the allegations Inmate [complainant]
reported; however, he did not witness the
allegations made by Inmate [Complainant].11
Reading the above passage, the hiring authority would have no way of
knowing that the incarcerated person who was a witness corroborated
the incarcerated person’s allegation that the officer told an incarcerated
person to “shut the [expletive] up.” The summary of the interview fails
to fully capture the gist of the incarcerated person’s statement to the
investigator, except that the incarcerated person described the officer
as “f---ed up” and that the officer conceivably could carry out the
allegations. The omission is especially glaring because the investigator
included a statement from another officer that suggested the allegations
would be out of character for the officer.

11. Complainant: The incarcerated person who submitted a declaration containing staff
misconduct allegations; Subject: the staff member who allegedly committed misconduct
and was the subject of the inquiry; Witness: an incarcerated person whom the investigator
interviewed as a witness to the alleged misconduct.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

22 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The Investigators Compromised the
Confidentiality of Some Cases
Another of our primary findings is that investigators failed to maintain
the confidentiality of some cases. To maintain the confidentiality of cases
required, among other things, that the investigator conduct interviews
in appropriate locations, not divulge unnecessary information during
the case, and appropriately admonish witnesses and subjects concerning
the confidentiality of the interviews and cases. Compromising the
confidentiality of an inquiry can undermine the integrity of a case as
witnesses may not come forward because they may not feel safe in doing
so, and subjects of inquiry cases may shape their statements according to
information they know to be on the record.

“Snitches get
stitches,
don’t they?”
—Officer’s statement,
overheard by an
incarcerated person

More important, the department must maintain confidentiality to keep
witnesses safe from actual retaliation from staff or other incarcerated
persons. Fear of retaliation for cooperating in a staff misconduct inquiry
is real and has been well-documented by our office. The department
has a legal duty to keep incarcerated persons safe and is subject to civil
liability when it fails to protect against reasonably foreseeable harm
by third persons.12 In many cases, we observed the word snitch in the
allegations and used by witnesses during interviews. The word snitch
is a slang word for an informant or someone who provides information
to officials. For example, in one case, an incarcerated person reported
alleged staff misconduct to a sergeant. Afterward, an officer looked at
the incarcerated person as he returned to his cell and allegedly said to
another officer, “Snitches get stitches, don’t they?” The second officer
allegedly laughed.
Despite the imperative to keep the cases confidential, we observed that
investigators compromised confidentiality when they unnecessarily
divulged information to witnesses in 11 of the 155 cases, or 7 percent of
fully monitored cases; when they conducted interviews in a manner that
compromised confidentiality in 22 of the 155 cases, or 14 percent of fully
monitored cases; and when they did not admonish each witness in the
inquiry case to keep the interview confidential in 90 of the 155 cases, or
58 percent of fully monitored cases.
An example of the department’s not maintaining the confidentiality of
cases during this project involved several cases in which investigators
conducted 19 interviews of incarcerated persons at the offices of the
prison’s investigative services unit. One incarcerated person interviewed
expressed frustration to the investigator that staff had other incarcerated

12. Giraldo v. California Department of Corrections (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 231, 250; there is
a special relationship between jailer and prisoner, imposing a duty of care to the latter,
including to protect against reasonably foreseeable harm caused by third parties.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 23

persons in his building pass out ducats13 reading “ISU”14 to incarcerated
persons summoned for interviews that day. The incarcerated person’s
attorney pointed out to the investigator, “That is not super safe.” It is not
safe because incarcerated persons and staff alike know the investigative
services unit investigates misconduct by incarcerated persons and
conducts inquiry cases regarding staff member misconduct. Therefore,
incarcerated persons escorted to that location must deal with the fear
of being labeled an informant (or a snitch) by either other incarcerated
persons or staff members.
In the same series of interviews, another incarcerated person stated
the following about his interview being conducted in the investigative
services unit: “Do you know how this looks? People are getting rolled out
of my building! It’s bad enough in a regular facility, but even worse in a
mental health building!” The incarcerated person chose not to answer
questions during his interview.
Last, during another interview at the investigative services unit, an
incarcerated person told the investigator before the investigator
turned on a recording device to capture the interview that he had been
incarcerated for 20 years and had never been in an interview room
before. He stated he did not like the idea of talking to investigators. The
incarcerated person told the investigator, “Just so you know, if someone
comes at me over this, I will kill them . . . and I am trying not to do that.
I’m trying to change that.” The investigator than proceeded to conduct
the audio-recorded interview, and the incarcerated person participated.
Another way in which investigators did not maintain confidentiality
was by unnecessarily divulging information to witnesses or subjects
during inquiry cases. For example, in one case, during an interview, an
investigator disclosed the full state of the evidence, including a review
of what the main witness had said, to an officer and the officer’s union
representative. The investigator divulged this information even though
the officer had already stated he “did not recall” either the incarcerated
person involved in the allegation or the incident itself.
By not maintaining confidentiality in these cases, investigators placed
witnesses at risk and potentially precluded the gathering of all available
evidence for consideration by the warden or other reviewer of the staff
misconduct allegations.

13. A ducat is a permission slip for an incarcerated person to move from a housing unit to
another location within the prison.
14. ISU, which stands for investigative services unit, is a common initialism used in prison
settings. It is understood by both staff and incarcerated persons to describe a team of
prison investigators assigned to investigate misconduct of incarcerated persons and to
conduct inquiries of staff member misconduct.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

24 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The Warden Reached Several Inappropriate
Decisions Concerning Cases
We also found that the warden reached several inappropriate decisions
concerning the resolution of the staff misconduct inquiry cases. For
the warden to have reached an appropriate decision concerning a staff
misconduct inquiry case, the warden should have accurately assessed
whether there was enough evidence to decide whether there was a
reasonable belief that staff misconduct occurred; thoroughly reviewed
all the available evidence; and have only reviewed those cases for
which the warden was an impartial reviewer. However, we found there
were several cases in which the warden reached a conclusion wherein
the investigators’ inquiry work for the cases was so deficient that, in
the OIG’s opinion, there was not enough evidence for the warden to
conclude one way or the other whether there was a reasonable belief
of misconduct. Furthermore, we also found a few cases in which the
warden did not review all available evidence before reaching a decision
concerning the cases or in which the warden made a decision even
though he was a potential witness in the case and, therefore, not an
impartial reviewer.
For each case, the Office of Internal Affairs provided the warden with
a final inquiry report and supporting materials, including interview
recordings and documentary evidence.15 The warden was required to
review each case to determine whether there was a reasonable belief
the alleged misconduct occurred. Staff misconduct means an allegation
that departmental staff violated a law, regulation, policy, or procedure,
or acted contrary to an ethical or a professional standard, which, if true,
would more likely than not subject a staff member to adverse disciplinary
action.16 According to the department’s training materials for this
project, reasonable belief is established when facts and circumstances are
known that make a reasonable person of average caution believe staff
misconduct occurred.
To arrive at this decision, the warden should have objectively reviewed all
the available evidence and assessed whether there was enough evidence
for him to conclude whether staff misconduct occurred. If there was not
enough evidence, the warden should have returned the case to the Office
of Internal Affairs for further inquiry work. If the warden concluded
there was enough evidence to decide, he then assessed whether there
was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. If there was, he referred the
case to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit for either an
investigation or for permission to take disciplinary action against the

15. As noted previously on page 1, for purposes of this report, we refer to the hiring
authority as the warden, even though, of the 257 cases, there were three cases decided by
another departmental official.
16. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3480 (b) (14).

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 25

staff member without an investigation. The warden sent his written
decisions to the OIG upon completing his reviews.
We found in 96 of the 155 cases we fully monitored, or 62 percent, the
Office of Internal Affairs’ inquiry work was so poor that the final reports
lacked sufficient evidence for a reviewer to make a determination
regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
Even so, the warden made a decision in each of those 96 cases. We
met with the warden concerning five cases and recommended he
request further inquiry work. In only one case, a case in which the
investigator had not interviewed the alleged victim of staff misconduct,
did the warden accept the OIG’s recommendation and request further
inquiry work. In the other four cases, the warden rejected the OIG’s
recommendation to return the cases to the Office of Internal Affairs for
further inquiry work.
Of the 96 cases in which we determined there was not enough
information to conclude whether there was a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct, in 82 of those cases, or 85 percent, the warden did not
identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matters to the Office of
Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit for an investigation. However, in
14 cases, the warden referred the matters for investigation even though
the OIG determined there was not enough information to conclude
whether there was a reasonable belief of misconduct.
For example, in one case, even though the investigator conducted poor
inquiry work such that there was insufficient information for the warden
to make a decision concerning reasonable belief of staff misconduct,
the warden decided the report provided sufficient evidence, and he
concluded there was not a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. An
officer in the administrative segregation unit allegedly removed an
incarcerated person from his cell, placed the incarcerated person in a
holding cell, did not remove the incarcerated person’s handcuffs, and
did not allow the incarcerated person to use a restroom for eight hours.
The officer also allegedly placed other incarcerated persons from the
administrative segregation unit in holding cells without justification and
called them derogatory names. The investigator asked leading questions
during interviews, which resulted in extremely short and conclusory
interviews. For example, the investigator interviewed an incarcerated
person, and during the interview, the investigator listed several scenarios
typical in a prison, such as medical emergencies, cell extractions, and
suicide responses, asking, “You know what that looks like?” He asked
the incarcerated person if he had ever observed anything like the
foregoing occur in the housing unit in which he lived. The interview
recording was only four minutes and seven seconds long. Further, the
incarcerated person who made the allegations claimed that a particular
officer was involved in the alleged misconduct. The investigator should
have interviewed the officer, but did not. Finally, the investigator did
not obtain and use in interviews a diagram of the housing unit where

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

26 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

the incidents allegedly occurred as an aid to help witnesses recall facts.
Despite the poor inquiry work, the warden decided the report provided
sufficient evidence to conclude there was not a reasonable belief
of misconduct.
We also found that the warden made decisions for cases in which he did
not thoroughly review all available evidence before resolving the case.
For an inquiry case to be appropriately resolved, a warden or other hiring
authority should carefully and thoroughly review all available evidence,
including the final inquiry report and all supporting materials. However,
the warden did not always do so. For example, on February 2, 2021,
the warden received five final inquiry reports on the same day related
to one incarcerated person’s allegations. As to those five final inquiry
reports, the warden also received supporting materials, which consisted
of approximately nine hours of recorded interviews and 157 pages
of exhibits. The inquiry reports consisted of 49 pages. When asked,
the warden specifically admitted he did not review all the interview
recordings for one of the inquiry cases. The warden also made a decision
concerning all five inquiry cases on February 2, 2021, the same day he
received the voluminous case materials, and the final inquiry reports and
supporting materials for the five cases.
Finally, we also determined that the warden made decisions on three
cases in which he was a potential witness. A warden must be impartial
and cannot be both a witness and a decision-maker in any case involving
allegations of staff misconduct. An example of a case in which the
warden made a decision even though he was a potential witness is one
in which, after an incarcerated person allegedly assaulted officers, an
officer allegedly retaliated against the incarcerated person by issuing
a false rules violation report against the incarcerated person. The
rules violation report contained an allegation the incarcerated person
possessed an alcoholic beverage. During the inquiry, the investigator
found that the alleged false rules violation report had been deleted from
a departmental database. The investigator did not submit a request to
the Office of Internal Affairs’ forensic investigative team to retrieve
data concerning when the rules violation report was deleted from the
departmental database, and to attempt to identify the person who deleted
the documents or from whose computer the documents had been deleted.
We recommended further inquiry work be done. The warden explained
he had a role in deleting the rules violation report. The warden reported
he had been advised to consider dismissing rules violation reports
issued to incarcerated persons who were part of the Armstrong lawsuit.
The warden explained, therefore, he had reviewed the rules violation
report at issue and dismissed it. It was further explained that when a
rules violation report was dismissed, the document disappears from the
departmental database in which it had been located.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 27

Despite his involvement in the case as a potential witness, the warden
reviewed the case and decided the matter. The warden did not return the
case for further inquiry work, did not identify staff misconduct, and did
not refer the matter to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit.
As the warden took the action that caused the relevant rules violation
report to be deleted from a departmental database, the warden was a
potential witness in the case, which calls into question the motive he had
in causing the rules violation report to be dismissed and deleted. At the
very least, it appears inappropriate the warden was the decision-maker in
a case in which he had a role in eliminating evidence.
By making inappropriate decisions concerning these staff misconduct
inquiry cases, the warden prevented both a complete gathering of
the available facts and the making of an appropriate resolution of the
cases in which he made decisions, despite there being insufficient
evidence for him to do so; stymied the review process by not thoroughly
reviewing all the case materials; and, for those cases in which he was a
potential witness, gave the appearance of a partial or biased resolution of
the cases.
Resolution of the Staff Misconduct Inquiry Cases
During the period of June 2020 through July 2021, the Office of Internal
Affairs completed 257 staff misconduct inquiry cases related to this
project. We monitored 204 of the 257 cases. We fully monitored 155 cases
and partially monitored 49 cases. The Office of Internal Affairs provided
its final inquiry reports to a hiring authority in 257 cases. Of the
257 inquiry cases, in 20 cases, or 8 percent, the hiring authority decided
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct and requested either
an investigation or the authorization to take direct disciplinary action
from the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit. In 237 of the
cases involving incarcerated persons’ allegations of staff misconduct,
or 92 percent, the hiring authority concluded there was not enough
information to corroborate the claim, or there was no violation of
policy, or the Office of Internal Affairs had previously investigated the
allegation. Accordingly, the hiring authority took no further action.
See Table 2 on the next page for the outcome of the 20 cases the hiring
authority referred to the Office of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit
for an investigation.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

28 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Table 2. Outcome of 20 Staff Misconduct Inquiry Cases the Warden Referred to
the Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit for an Investigation
Legend

~

Yes

~

No

~

Rejected

~

Not Applicable

EHff§

Not Applicable
(criminal case)

OIG Case Number
20-0035273-IQ

No OIG Case Number *

1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111

1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111

21-0037895-IQ †

EHff§

EHff§

20-0035988-IQ
20-0034671-IQ
20-0035218-IQ
20-0034513-IQ

Notes:

20-0035224-IQ

Rejected means the Office of
Internal Affairs’ Central Intake
Unit rejected the warden’s
request for an investigation.

20-0034661-IQ

* The OIG did not monitor this
case; therefore, there is no
OIG case number.
† The department conducted a

criminal (not an administrative)
investigation in this matter.
Therefore, the deadline to
take disciplinary action and
whether the hiring authority
sustained allegations are not
applicable measures. However,
after the Office of Internal
Affairs conducted a criminal
investigation, the Office of
Internal Affairs found that there
was not sufficient evidence
to refer the investigation to
a district attorney’s office for
filing consideration.
Source: The OIG’s case
management system.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Did the
Did the
Deadline
Hiring
to Take
Authority
Disciplinary
Sustain
Action
the
Expire?
Allegations?

20-0036620-IQ
20-0036003-IQ
20-0035296-IQ
20-0035208-IQ
21-0037883-IQ
20-0034831-IQ
20-0034516-IQ
20-0035160-IQ
20-0034511-IQ
20-0035286-IQ
20-0035233-IQ

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 29

Of the 257 staff misconduct inquiry cases completed at the Richard J.
Donovan Correctional Facility from June 2020 through July 2021, the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit later opened and approved
18 cases: 17 cases with administrative allegations and one case with
criminal allegations. Of the 17 administrative cases, the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Central Intake Unit opened 16 administrative investigations
and one authorization to take direct disciplinary action case. The
Office of Internal Affairs’ Central Intake Unit rejected two requests
for investigations. One of the rejected cases involved administrative
allegations and the other involved criminal allegations. Regarding the
17 completed cases opened as administrative cases, the department later
agreed with the OIG’s position that the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired in 10 of the cases, which the department then closed.
In the seven remaining administrative cases, the hiring authority
sustained allegations in one case and imposed letters of instruction,
not disciplinary action, on the involved officers. The department did
not sustain allegations in the other six cases. As to the one criminal
investigation, the Office of Internal Affairs conducted investigative
activities and determined there was not enough evidence to refer the case
to a district attorney’s office for filing consideration and closed its case.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

30 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 31

Appendix: The 204 Case Summaries

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

32 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Departmental Inquiry Cases
Headquarters

N = 204

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035230-IQ

Incident Date
July 05, 2016

Between July 5, 2016, and December 31, 2020, three ofQcers allegedly directed inappropriate statements to an
incarcerated person, such as "Get in line!"; "Hurry up!"; and "Shut up and get to your cell!"

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant interviews, lied to a witness, and did not

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct the inquiry until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegations. Also,
the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant
interviews, lied to a witness, and did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the incarcerated person reported
several allegations of staff misconduct other than the subject matter of the inquiry. However, the investigator
did not ask sufQciently detailed follow-up questions of the incarcerated person to determine the extent of his
knowledge about those allegations, even though some of them pertained to allegations the department was
investigating in other inquiries.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator interviewed two ofQcers whom an incarcerated person identiQed as having committed the
misconduct. However, the investigator did not interview an additional ofQcer whom the incarcerated person
identiQed during an interview as having also committed the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview, an incarcerated person asked the investigator for the identity of the incarcerated person
who made the allegations. Rather than answer truthfully or refuse to answer at all, the investigator lied and
provided the incarcerated person with a false name.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator failed to include in the Qnal inquiry report the fact that the incarcerated person who made the
allegation identiQed a third ofQcer as also having committed the alleged misconduct.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 33

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
August 17, 2020, seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was
January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

34 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035231-IQ

Incident Date
July 05, 2016

Between July 5, 2016, and December 31, 2020, ofQcers allegedly failed to provide an incarcerated person with
fresh clothes and bed sheets following incontinence accidents experienced by the incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant interviews, lied to a witness, and did not

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

include all relevant facts in the report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the
OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However,
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce
of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. It did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry
until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed
to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant interviews, lied to a
witness, and did not include all relevant facts in the report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the incarcerated person reported
several allegations of staff misconduct other than the subject matter of the inquiry. However, the investigator
did not ask sufQciently detailed follow-up questions of the incarcerated person to determine the extent of his
knowledge about those allegations, even though some of them pertained to allegations the department was
investigating in other inquiries.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not but should have interviewed an additional ofQcer whom the
incarcerated person identiQed during his interview as committing the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. During an
interview of an incarcerated person who asked for the identity of the incarcerated person who alleged
misconduct, rather than answer truthfully or refuse to answer at all, the investigator lied and provided the
incarcerated person a false name.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator failed to include in the Qnal inquiry report the fact that the incarcerated person who made the
allegation identiQed an additional ofQcer as having committed the alleged misconduct.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 35

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April
19, 2021, three months and six days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

36 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034623-IQ

Incident Date
December 19,
2016

On December 19, 2016, an ofQcer allegedly damaged and destroyed an incarcerated person's property and
told the incarcerated person, "I don't give a [expletive] what you do." A sergeant allegedly told the incarcerated
person, "Go get [expletive]. How do I know you didn't do it yourself to get the ofQcer in trouble?" Subsequently,

Allegations

after the incarcerated person Qled a staff complaint grievance, the ofQcer allegedly damaged property
belonging to the incarcerated person.

Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed this
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct this inquiry until Qve months and three days after receiving a declaration from an incarcerated person
containing staff misconduct allegations. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry
report until four months and seven days following the investigator's Qnal interview and did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until three years, three months, and 29 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not appropriately conduct the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
began and completed this inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The department did not
assign an investigator to conduct this inquiry until Qve months and three days after receiving a declaration from
an incarcerated person containing staff misconduct allegations. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until four months and seven days following the investigator's Qnal interview
and did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until three years, three months, and 29 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was December 23, 2017. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 21, 2021, three years, three months, and 29 days after the
deadline had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on December 23, 2016, and the
deadline for taking disciplinary action was December 23, 2017. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on June 16, 2020, two years, Qve months, and 24 days after
the deadline had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
on April 21, 2021, three years, three months, and 29 days after the deadline had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On December 23, 2016, the incarcerated person Qled a staff misconduct grievance. On January 17, 2017, the
department assigned a lieutenant to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of staff misconduct. The lieutenant

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 37

conducted a cursory inquiry. On January 27, 2017, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority
determined staff did not violate department policy. The incarcerated person subsequently submitted a
declaration setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the department on January 13, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the same allegations on June
16, 2020, Qve months and three days after receiving the declaration. The investigator completed the Qnal
interview on December 14, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit it Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, four months and seven days thereafter. Lastly, although the deadline
to take disciplinary action was December 23, 2017, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry
report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, three years, three months, and 29 days after the deadline
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

38 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035995-IQ

Incident Date

Between January 1, 2017, and May 30, 2017, in retaliation for an incarcerated person's Qling complaints
against staff members, an ofQcer allegedly did not allow the incarcerated person access to a dayroom,
showers, or telephones.

January 01, 2017

Allegations
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record conversation.
Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion
regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because the OfQce of Internal Affairs began and
completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until three years, one month, and 27 days after the department
learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during
interviews and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal." The investigator did not ask the incarcerated
person who made the allegation why the incarcerated person believed he was being denied showers for a
retaliatory reason, but the investigator should have done so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2018. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, submitted its Qnal inquiry report
to the hiring authority, two years, nine months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, nine months, and Qve days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on May 30, 2017, and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the department's
second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, two years, one month and 27 days after the deadline. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021, two years,
nine months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 39

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 30, 2017, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a sergeant to conduct an
inquiry. The sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, but the incarcerated person withdrew the staff
misconduct grievance on September 11, 2017. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently
submitted a declaration setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the department. On July 27,
2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations,
Qve months, and 23 days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on
December 1, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the Qnal inquiry report until March 5,
2021, three months, and four days after the last interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30,
2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5,
2021, two years, nine months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

40 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035216-IQ

Incident Date
January 04, 2017

Between January 4, 2017, and January 6, 2020, ofQcers allegedly demeaned incarcerated persons with
disabilities by referring to their psychiatric medications as “skittles” over a public address system.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG did not agree with the hiring authority's decision that there was not a reasonable belief of
misconduct but agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit a request for investigation to the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OfQce of Internal Affairs because the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. It did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until
six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. In addition, the
investigator did not conduct the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a conQdential
setting.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete the inquiry until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary
action had expired. Also, the investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted
the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred. During the
interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the ofQce through a window, and even opened the door
of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the
interview.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 14, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months
and three days after completion of the last interview. In addition, the deadline to take disciplinary action was
January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 41

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034571-IQ

Incident Date
April 01, 2017

Between April 1, 2017, and April 30, 2017, after an incarcerated person complained about an ofQcer, another
ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person, "We know where you live, and we are going to get you."

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, inappropriately revealed information to the ofQcer who was the subject of the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

inquiry concerning the state and extent of the evidence in an off-the-record conversation, and did not complete
all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry work, the
OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However,
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce
of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. It did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed
to ask relevant questions during interviews, inappropriately revealed information to the ofQcer who was the
subject of the inquiry concerning the state and extent of the evidence in an off-the-record conversation, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not provide conQdentiality advisements at the
conclusion of interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, on December 8, 2020, the investigator failed to ask multiple relevant questions during a
witness interview. The investigator also failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions to the answers given by
the witness.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview on August 18, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation with
the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry during which the investigator told the ofQcer that the alleged
incident occurred in March of 2017, and not in April 2017, as alleged by the incarcerated person who
submitted the complaint.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator should have interviewed two additional incarcerated persons who may have been percipient
witnesses to the incident to provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding the alleged
misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on August 18, 2020, the investigator engaged in an improper conversation with the ofQcer
who was the subject of the inquiry prior to an interview during which the investigator revealed the state and
extent of the evidence in the case.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

42 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
ten months and 16 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 43

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035304-IQ

Incident Date

Between April 1, 2017, and April 30, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly lied to an incarcerated person by telling him
that a lieutenant wanted the incarcerated person to not pursue a complaint the incarcerated person had
previously submitted.

April 01, 2017

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to ask follow-up questions, inappropriately revealed information to an
ofQcer in an off-the-record conversation concerning the state and extent of the evidence, and did not complete
all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry work, the
OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However,
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce
of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. It did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed
to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to ask follow-up questions, inappropriately revealed
information to an ofQcer concerning the state and extent of the evidence in an off-the-record conversation, and
did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, on August 15, 2020, the investigator failed to ask multiple relevant questions during a
witness interview. The investigator also failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions to the answers given by
the witness.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an interview conducted on August 15, 2020, the investigator failed to ask foundational questions and did
not ask signiQcant clarifying questions.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not but should have interviewed two additional incarcerated persons who may have been
percipient witnesses to the incident to provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding the alleged
misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on August 18, 2020, the investigator engaged in a conversation with an ofQcer during
which the investigator revealed the state and extent of the evidence in the case.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

44 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
ten months and 16 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 45

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035305-IQ

Incident Date
April 01, 2017

Between April 1, 2017, and April 30, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly inappropriately stuck her hands inside an
incarcerated person's pants for approximately thirty seconds.

Allegations

Disposition

Other

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to follow-up and clarify answers given by an ofQcer who was the subject of

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

the inquiry, inappropriately revealed information to an ofQcer concerning the state and extent of the the
evidence in an off-the-record conversation, and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to
the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding
whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation
was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. It did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed
to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to follow-up and clarify answers given by an ofQcer who was
the subject of the inquiry, and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. In addition, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During witness interviews on July 30, 2020, August 15, 2020, and December 8, 2020, the investigator failed to
ask multiple relevant questions. The investigator also failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions to the
answers given by the witnesses.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview of an ofQcer on August 18, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator told the ofQcer that
the alleged incident occurred in March of 2017, and not in April 2017, as alleged by the incarcerated person
who submitted the complaint. In addition, during a December 8, 2020, interview of the ofQcer who was the
subject of the inquiry, the investigator failed to ask logical follow-up questions of the ofQcer when she
repeatedly claimed that she did not remember the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator should have interviewed two additional incarcerated persons who may have been percipient
witnesses to the incident to provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding the alleged
misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, on August 18, 2020, the investigator engaged in an improper conversation with the ofQcer
who was the subject of the inquiry prior to an interview when the investigator revealed the state and extent of
the evidence in the case.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

46 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, ten months and 16 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was April 1, 2020, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
ten months and 16 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 47

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037876-IQ

Incident Date
April 01, 2017

Between April 1, 2017, and May 31, 2017, multiple ofQcers allegedly kipped an incarcerated person out his
wheelchair onto the koor and then assaulted him.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. It allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire
before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 31, 2020. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, one year, one
month, and 16 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 31, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, one year, one month, and 16 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 31, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, one year, one month, and 16 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 31, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, one year, one month, and 16 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was May 31, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until July 16, 2021, one year, one month, and 16 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

48 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035229-IQ

Incident Date
April 24, 2017

Between April 24, 2017, and April 27, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly allowed a dead incarcerated person to remain
in a cell for multiple days after the cellmate murdered the incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority reviewed the inquiry and determined that he had previously referred the matter to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. Therefore, there was no need for the hiring
authority to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs again.

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department handled the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The hiring authority had previously
submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs and, therefore, the investigator did not conduct any
interviews.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 49

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034654-IQ

Incident Date

On May 10, 2017, two ofQcers allegedly refused to allow an incarcerated person to attend religious services.

May 10, 2017

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary
Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information
obtained from an off-the-record conversation. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs started and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct this inquiry until three years, two months, and 16 days after the department learned of
the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed
to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record
conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal.”

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques because, during an October 27, 2020, interview
of a sergeant, the investigator did not clearly note for the record the exhibit he was showing the sergeant, did
not note for the record that the sergeant's representative drew his attention to something depicted in an
exhibit, and allowed the sergeant to speak freely on the record when there was no question pending. Also, the
investigator provided the sergeant with the last name of an ofQcer and asked the sergeant if he knew the
ofQcer. When the sergeant answered that he did not know an ofQcer by that name, the investigator told the
sergeant, "That's fair. I came up with the same thing," which could cause the sergeant to conclude that no such
ofQcer existed.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted a second inquiry after the alleged misconduct had already been
adequately investigated in a prior inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after
the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 11, 2018. On
March 5, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority, two years, nine
months, and 22 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

50 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 11, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, nine months, and 22 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s complaint on May 11, 2017, and the deadline to take
disciplinary action was May 11, 2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the department's second inquiry into
the allegations on July 27, 2020, two years, two months and 16 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021,
two years, nine months, and 22 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 11, 2017, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person when he submitted a complaint. On May 19, 2017, the department assigned a sergeant to conduct an
inquiry. The sergeant sufQciently investigated the complaint by interviewing the incarcerated person and the
two ofQcers who allegedly committed misconduct. On May 30, 2017, at the completion of the inquiry, the
hiring authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated
person subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the
department. Even though a sufQcient inquiry had been previously conducted, on July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, Qve months, and 23
days after receiving the declaration.The OfQce of Internal Affairs expended time and resources by having an
investigator conduct a second inquiry and, upon its completion, submit a Qnal inquiry report on March 5, 2021,
two years, nine months, and 22 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired on May 11,
2018.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 51

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035996-IQ

Incident Date
May 10, 2017

Between May 10, 2017, and September 29, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated
person by refusing the incarcerated person access to a dayroom.

Allegations

Disposition

Retaliation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record conversation.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion
regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 23 days after the department learned of the staff
misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and failed to
capture information obtained from an off-the-record conversation. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal."

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 29, 2020. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority, Qve months and Qve days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 29, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, Qve months and Qve days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 29, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, Qve months and Qve days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 4, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

52 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

allegation until July 27, 2020, Qve months and 23 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action
was September 29, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until March 5, 2021, Qve months and Qve days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 53

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035992-IQ

Incident Date

Between May 11, 2017, and September 24, 2017, on multiple occasions, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door
on an incarcerated person's wheelchair in retaliation for the incarcerated person Qling complaints against staff
members.

May 11, 2017

Allegations
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, failed to capture information
obtained from an off-the-record conversation, and did not include all relevant information in the Qnal inquiry
report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion
regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until two years, 10 months, and two days after the department learned of
the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed
to use effective interviewing techniques, failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record
conversation, and did not include all relevant information in the Qnal inquiry report.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal.”Also, during an interview of the ofQcer who was
the subject of the inquiry, the investigator failed to ask sufQcient follow-up questions about the general process
of opening and closing cell doors and speciQc occurrences. Additionally, the investigator failed to ask an
incarcerated person for the identity of persons to whom he referred.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques because, during an October 27, 2020, interview
of a sergeant, the investigator did not clearly note for the record the exhibit he was showing the sergeant, did
not note for the record that the sergeant's representative drew his attention to something depicted in an
exhibit, and allowed the sergeant to speak freely on the record when there was no question pending. Also, the
investigator provided the sergeant with the last name of an ofQcer and asked the sergeant if he knew the
ofQcer. When the sergeant answered that he did not know an ofQcer by that name, the investigator told the
sergeant, "That's fair. I came up with the same thing," which could cause the sergeant to conclude that no such
ofQcer existed.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, submitted its Qnal

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

54 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

inquiry report to the hiring authority, two years, Qve months, and eight days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report rekects that an incarcerated person stated in an interview that he did not recall the incarcerated
person who made the allegation getting struck by a cell door nor recall the incarcerated person stating that he
had been struck by the cell door. However, the report did not include the information that the incarcerated
person stated during the interview that he witnessed the incarcerated person who made the allegation pinned
by a cell door in his wheelchair as other incarcerated persons yelled.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on September 25, 2017, and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, one year, 10 months and two days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority on March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 25, 2017, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a sergeant to
conduct an inquiry. On November 17, 2017, the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, but the sergeant
did not sufQciently investigate the staff misconduct grievance by interviewing other incarcerated persons or
staff. On March 1, 2018, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate
departmental policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration
setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the department. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, Qve months and 23
days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on December 9, 2020, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021,
two months and 24 days after the last interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25,
2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5,
2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 55

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035994-IQ

Incident Date
June 01, 2017

Between June 1, 2017, and June 30, 2017, a sergeant allegedly failed to stop ofQcers from assaulting an
incarcerated person in a dining area.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews and failed to use effective interviewing techniques. Due to the poor quality of the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 23 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and failed to use effective interviewing
techniques. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal."

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques because on December 9,
2020, the investigator unnecessarily apologized to the sergeant, who was the subject of the inquiry, for asking
questions about his alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 30, 2020. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, completed and submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority, eight months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 30, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, eight months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 30, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, eight months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

56 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On February 4, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, Qve
months and 23 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was June 30, 2020, but the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, eight months
and Qve days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 57

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037925-IQ

Incident Date

On July 25, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly arranged a Qght among incarcerated persons and allegedly shot an
incarcerated person in the face with a round from a less-lethal weapon during that Qght among incarcerated
persons.

July 25, 2017

Allegations
Use of Force
Battery

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, three
months and eleven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, three months and eleven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, three months and eleven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, three months and eleven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, three months and eleven days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

58 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035276-IQ

Incident Date

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, ofQcers allegedly refused to take incarcerated persons to their
scheduled mental health group meetings, and, on one occasion, refused to take an entire housing unit to
mental health group therapy.

August 01, 2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations.

Satisfactory

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department handled the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 59

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036005-IQ

Incident Date
August 01, 2017

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, ofQcers allegedly called a social worker a "care bear," an
allegedly derogatory term for someone who assists or is sympathetic toward incarcerated persons.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Satisfactory

Incident Summary

The department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

60 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036006-IQ

Incident Date

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly lied to a social worker when he told her an
incarcerated person assigned to the social worker's therapy group was murdered to set her up for a false
allegation that she was overly familiar with the incarcerated person.

August 01, 2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Dishonesty

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Satisfactory

Overall Assessment
The department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 61

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036008-IQ

Incident Date
August 01, 2017

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly refused a request from a social worker
that the ofQcer escort her across a yard occupied by incarcerated persons.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

62 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036010-IQ

Incident Date

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, ofQcers allegedly failed to take action regarding allegations
that an incarcerated person stalked a social worker, laughed at her, and made up stories to frighten her about
an incarcerated person lying in wait in the social worker's ofQce.

August 01, 2017

Allegations
Dishonesty
Neglect of Duty
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 63

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036012-IQ

Incident Date

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, ofQcers allegedly stated they hated incarcerated persons;
remarked that incarcerated persons do not deserve help or services; ridiculed incarcerated persons; and
intentionally antagonized incarcerated persons who have mental disabilities.

August 01, 2017

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

64 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036013-IQ

Incident Date
August 01, 2017

Between August 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018, ofQcers allegedly ignored and did not respond to Qghts
between incarcerated persons.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 65

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035998-IQ

Incident Date

On August 10, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person by denying him access to a
bathroom because the incarcerated person had Qled staff misconduct grievances and other complaints against
staff members.

August 10, 2017

Allegations
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information
obtained from an off-the-record conversation. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until two years, 10 months, and Qve days after the department learned of the
staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to
use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record
conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal."Also, the investigator failed to ask logical followup questions when interviewing the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry when the ofQcer claimed to
follow policy in handling the incident notwithstanding her earlier assertion that she was unaware there even
was a relevant policy.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Theinvestigator asked multiple leading questions of the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry such that the
ofQcer could have inferred the proper or preferred responses to questions.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 22, 2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve
months, and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 22, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and 11 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

66 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on September 22, 2017, and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was September 22, 2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, one year, 10 months and Qve days after the
deadline. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5,
2021, two years, Qve months, and eleven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 22, 2017, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance alleging an ofQcer denied access to a
bathroom because of the incarcerated person's race. On October 4, 2017, the department assigned a
lieutenant to conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person, the ofQcer who allegedly
committed the misconduct, and a second ofQcer assigned to the building where the incident allegedly occurred.
On October 9, 2017, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate
departmental policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration
setting forth the same allegation of staff misconduct to the department, but in the declaration the incarcerated
person offered a different theory to explain why the ofQcer denied the incarcerated person access to the
bathroom. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry
into the allegation, Qve months and 23 days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the
Qnal interview on December 7, 2020, but the investigator did not complete the inquiry report until March 5,
2021, two months and 26 days after the last interview. Although the deadline to take disciplinary action was
September 22, 2018, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 67

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035993-IQ

Incident Date

On August 14, 2017, in retaliation for an incarcerated person Qling complaints against staff members, an ofQcer
allegedly caused a cell door to move and strike the incarcerated person, after which the incarcerated person
was trapped in the doorway of the cell for approximately Qfteen minutes.

August 14, 2017

Allegations
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information
obtained from an off-the-record conversation. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until two years, 10 months, and two days after the department learned of
the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed
to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record
conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal.”Also, during an interview of the ofQcer who was
the subject of the inquiry, the investigator failed to ask sufQcient follow-up questions about the general process
of opening and closing cell doors and speciQc occurrences. Additionally, the investigator failed to ask an
incarcerated person for the identity of persons to whom he referred.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques because, during an October 27, 2020, interview
of a sergeant, the investigator did not clearly note for the record the exhibit he was showing the sergeant, did
not note for the record that the sergeant's representative drew his attention to something depicted in an
exhibit, and allowed the sergeant to speak freely on the record when there was no question pending. Also, the
investigator provided the sergeant with the last name of an ofQcer and asked the sergeant if he knew the
ofQcer. When the sergeant answered that he did not know an ofQcer by that name, the investigator told the
sergeant, "That's fair. I came up with the same thing," which could cause the sergeant to conclude that no such
ofQcer existed.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority, two years, Qve months and eight days after the deadline to take

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

68 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

disciplinary action. Also, the investigator unnecessarily commented on the difQculty of the inquiry based on the
age of the allegation, and unnecessarily empathized with a witness during an interview on October 20, 2020,
when the witness could not recall an event.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25, 2018, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 25, 2017, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a sergeant to
conduct an inquiry. On November 17, 2017, the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, but the sergeant
did not sufQciently investigate the staff misconduct grievance by interviewing other incarcerated persons or
staff. On March 1, 2018, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate
departmental policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration
setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the department. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, Qve months, and 23
days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on December 9, 2020, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021,
two months and 24 days after the last interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 25,
2018. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5,
2021, two years, Qve months, and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 69

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036011-IQ

Incident Date

From November 2, 2017, through November 30, 2017, ofQcers allegedly retaliated against a social worker for
complaining about ofQcers refusing to take incarcerated persons to her group therapy sessions.

November 02,
2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Retaliation

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Satisfactory

Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The department did not conduct any
interviews because the complainant, a former employee, refused to cooperate with the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

70 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034661-IQ

Incident Date
November 06,
2017

Between November 6, 2017, and February 14, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly called incarcerated persons
derogatory names over a public announcement system, refused the incarcerated persons access to their
housing unit during hot weather which put their safety at risk, and directed provocative and threatening

Allegations

statements over a public announcement system to the incarcerated persons, such as "Meet me out in the yard,"
and "They can't Qre me, so I'm staying here.”

Discourteous
Treatment
Threat/Intimidation
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for the
allegations that the ofQcer made inappropriate statements over the public announcement system. However,
overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not conduct an inquiry
concerning the allegation that the ofQcer did not allow incarcerated persons access to their housing unit during
inclement weather. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision
to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On May 19,
2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit approved an investigation. However, because the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not conduct an investigation.
On August 2, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings regarding whether misconduct had occurred and did
not impose corrective action or discipline against the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not conduct an inquiry into one of
the allegations. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the
hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions of the witnesses or of the subject of the inquiry regarding the
allegation that the ofQcer allegedly refused the incarcerated persons access to their housing unit during
hotweather which put their safety at risk.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview any witnesses regarding the allegation that an ofQcer allegedly refused the
incarcerated persons access to their housing unit during hotweather which put their safety at risk.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to conduct an inquiry into the allegation that an ofQcer allegedly refused the
incarcerated persons access to their housing unit during hotweather which put their safety at risk.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator failed to conducted an inquiry into the allegation that an ofQcer allegedly refused the
incarcerated persons access to their housing unit during hotweather which put their safety at risk.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 5, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, four months and Qve
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 71

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 5, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, four months and Qve
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 5, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, four months and Qve
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

72 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037837-IQ

Incident Date

On December 29, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly kicked and punched an incarcerated person in the head as he lay
on the ground in handcuffs.

December 29,
2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 29,
2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27,
2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020. The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department
allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire beforecompletion of the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 73

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037841-IQ

Incident Date

On December 29, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly deployed an extended blast of pepper spray to the face of an
incarcerated person.

December 29,
2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 29,
2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27,
2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020. The department poorly conducted the inquiry because it allowed
the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire beforecompletion of the inquiry.The OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

74 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037845-IQ

Incident Date

On December 29, 2017, an ofQcer allegedly kicked an incarcerated person in the shoulder as he lay on the
ground in handcuffs.

December 29,
2017

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 29,
2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27,
2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasDecember 29, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until May 27, 2021, four months and 28 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 75

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035297-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2018

Between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly intentionally closed a cell door on an
incarcerated person, causing cuts and bleeding to the incarcerated person's hands.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 18 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG’s opinion, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not appropriately conduct the inquiry because it did not
assign an investigator for Qve months and 18 days after learning of the allegation of staff misconduct. Also, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the Qnal inquiry report until 20 days after the
deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing an allegation of staff misconduct. However, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 1, 2020, Qve
months and 18 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, however,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021,
20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

76 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035212-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2018

Between January 1, 2018, and April 14, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly slammed an incarcerated person against a
wall and dragged the incarcerated person to a program ofQce.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator conducted the interview of
the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a setting that was not private or conQdential and failed to

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

ask the incarcerated person relevant questions. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. In
addition, the investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a
setting that was not private or conQdential and failed to ask the incarcerated person relevant questions.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask the incarcerated person who made the allegation for a description of the
incarcerated person who was the target of the alleged misconduct, and failed to ask questions that could assist
the investigator in identifying other incarcerated persons who may have witnessed the alleged misconduct.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted the Qnal
interview on January 26, 2021, and delivered its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17, 2021,
both events occurring after the deadline to take disciplinary action. Also, the investigator conducted the
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit
where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the
ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly
compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021,

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 77

one month and 19 days thereafter. In addition, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and
four days after the deadline.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

78 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035214-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2018

Between January 1, 2018, and April 14, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly slammed an incarcerated person against a
wall and dragged the incarcerated person to a program ofQce.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator conducted the interview of
the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a setting that was not private or conQdential and failed to

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

ask the incarcerated person relevant questions. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. In
addition, the investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a
setting that was not private or conQdential and failed to ask the incarcerated person relevant questions.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask the incarcerated person who made the allegation for a description of the
incarcerated person who was the target of the alleged misconduct, and failed to ask questions that could assist
the investigator in identifying other incarcerated persons who may have witnessed the alleged misconduct.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted the
Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17,
2021, both events occurring after the deadline to take disciplinary action. Also, the investigator conducted the
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit
where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the
ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly
compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 79

months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two
months and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

80 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037920-IQ

Incident Date

Between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person by his neck
and an arm, threw him to the koor, intentionally fell on top of the incarcerated person, and caused the
incarcerated person pain by handcufQng him from behind.

January 01, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Battery

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three
months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 81

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037921-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2018

Between January 1, 2018, through June 30, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly punched and placed a knee on an
incarcerated person's face, causing cuts and bruises.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three
months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

82 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037842-IQ

Incident Date
January 02, 2018

On January 2, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly dropped his knee onto the back of an incarcerated person's head and a
second ofQcer allegedly kicked the incarcerated person as he lay on the dayroom koor in handcuffs.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 2, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve
months and nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve month and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020.The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 83

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037844-IQ

Incident Date

On January 2, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly threatened incarcerated persons living in a housing unit by saying that
they would "get hit" with searches because one of the incarcerated persons yelled that he was going to report
ofQcers for using excessive force.

January 02, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 2, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve
months and nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasJanuary 2, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until June 11, 2021, Qve months and nine days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

84 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037931-IQ

Incident Date

Between March 16, 2018, and June 18, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly said that if an incarcerated person did not
agree to take his medication, the ofQcer would ensure other incarcerated persons physically harmed the
incarcerated person.

March 16, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 85

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037838-IQ

Incident Date

On April 5, 2018 an ofQcer allegedly told an incarcerated person "Do I look like I want to [expletive] clown with
you, [expletive]?" and grabbed a second incarcerated person by the throat and punched him repeatedly in the
face.

April 05, 2018

Allegations
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority reviewed the inquiry report and determined that on March 21, 2019, a hiring authority had
previously referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On April
17, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case for an investigation.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two
years and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on April 12, 2018. The deadline to take disciplinary
action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

86 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037843-IQ

Incident Date

On April 5, 2018, Qve ofQcers allegedly punched and kicked an incarcerated person, who was wearing a vest
indicating that he was mobility-impaired, in the head, back, face, legs, and stomach, for several minutes on an
exercise yard.

April 05, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Battery

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority determined that he had previously submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
Central Intake Unit, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one
years, Qve months, and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one years, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one years, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one years, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 18, 2019.The deadline to take
disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one years, Qve months, and six days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 87

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037847-IQ

Incident Date
April 05, 2018

On April 5, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly kicked an incarcerated person, grabbed him by the head, and slammed
his face into the wall, causing the incarcerated person's face to swell and bleed.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The
hiring authority had previously submitted the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry because it allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to
expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years
and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on April 12, 2018. The deadline to take disciplinary
action wasApril 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until April 23, 2021, two years and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

88 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037848-IQ

Incident Date

On April 5, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly punched an incarcerated person in the face for no reason.

April 05, 2018

Allegations
Battery

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary
Disposition
The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The
hiring authority had previously submitted the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one
year, Qve months, and 14 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, Qve months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, Qve months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, Qve months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 18, 2019. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasJanuary 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, Qve months, and 14 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 89

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037851-IQ

Incident Date
April 05, 2018

On April 5, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly stomped on an incarcerated person's ankle, bounced on it, and hit it with
a baton.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority determined he previously submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one
year, Qve months, and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one year, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one year, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one year, Qve months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 18, 2019. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was January 18, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, one year, Qve months, and six days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

90 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037854-IQ

Incident Date

On April 5, 2018, a sergeant allegedly observed ofQcers assault an incarcerated person and failed to intervene.

April 05, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary
Disposition

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The
hiring authority had previously submitted the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, two
years, two months, and 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, two years, two months, and 12 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, two years, two months, and 12 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, two years, two months, and 12 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on April 12, 2018.The deadline to take disciplinary
action was April 12, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until June 24, 2021, two years, two months, and 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 91

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037852-IQ

Incident Date
April 07, 2018

On April 7, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly intimidated an incarcerated person by stopping at the incarcerated
person's cell, glaring at him, and shaking his head before walking away.

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 17, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three
months and seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 22, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

92 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037859-IQ

Incident Date
April 07, 2018

On April 7, 2018, in front of an incarcerated person, an ofQcer told another ofQcer, "Snitches get stitches, don't
they?"

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 17, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 25, 2021, three
months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 25, 2021, three months and eight days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 25, 2021, three months and eight days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 25, 2021, three months and eight days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until June 25, 2021, three months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 93

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034513-IQ

Incident Date

On April 14, 2018, while escorting an incarcerated person to a program ofQce, two ofQcers and a sergeant
allegedly handcuffed the incarcerated person behind his back while lifting up one of the incarcerated person's
arms, slammed the incarcerated person against a wall while pinning his shoulder and face against the wall,

April 14, 2018

Allegations
Use of Force
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

dragged the incarcerated person into a holding cell, and punched the incarcerated person, causing the
incarcerated person to fall and hit his head. After returning to the cell, the incarcerated person allegedly
requested assistance by yelling, "Man down!" A third ofQcer allegedly declined to provide medical attention to
the incarcerated person and stated, "You can't go 'man down.' Come on. You really gonna put me through this?”

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions and failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Despite the poor quality of the
inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On April 14, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake
Unit subsequently approved an investigation. However, because the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not conduct an investigation. On July 14, 2021, the hiring authority
made no Qndings regarding whether misconduct occurred and did not impose corrective action or discipline
against the ofQcers or the sergeant.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until two years, three months, and 13 days after the department learned of
the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and
failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator provided a lieutenant with a copy of a report he wrote about the incident and allowed the
lieutenant to read from it verbatim, instead of Qrst questioning him about his independent recollection of the
incident. Also, the investigator failed to address the lieutenant's contradictory statement that he did not believe
he had previously conducted interviews pertaining to the incident, notwithstanding the fact that the lieutenant
was referring to, and reading from, a report that documented interviews the lieutenant previously conducted. In
addition, the investigator only provided the lieutenant with documents pertaining to his prior interviews of
staff, and not prior interviews of incarcerated persons, thereby providing the lieutenant an incomplete record of
his report.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator disclosed to a sergeant that records showed that the incident occurred before the sergeant
reported for duty that day, and that the investigator was only interviewing the sergeant about events that
transpired after the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 14, 2019. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 17, 2021, submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority, one year, 11 months, and three days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. Also, the
investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

94 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

located in the same housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated
in the area, looked inside the ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the
interview, which signiQcantly compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview. In addition, during a
September 17, 2020, interview of an incarcerated person, one of two investigators acted in a dual role not only
as an investigator, asking questions during the interview, but also as a staff assistant for the disabled
incarcerated person.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 14, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, one year, 11 months, and three days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department Qrst learned of the allegations on April 14, 2018, and the deadline to take disciplinary action
was April 14, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the department's second inquiry into the allegations
on July 27, 2020, one year, three months, and 13 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17, 2021, one year, 11
months, and three days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On April 14, 2018, the department Qrst learned of the staff misconduct allegations when the incarcerated
person reported during a recorded interview that staff members assaulted him. The incarcerated person
subsequently Qled a staff misconduct grievance on May 17, 2018. The department assigned a lieutenant to
conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person, a sergeant, and two ofQcers, but did
not interview other incarcerated persons. On July 13, 2018, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority
determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person
subsequently submitted a declaration to the department setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct.
On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the
allegations, six months and 14 days after receiving the declaration.The investigator conducted the Qnal
interview on December 18, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and 27 days after the last interview.The deadline to take
disciplinary action was April 14, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority until March 17, 2021, one year, 11 months, and three days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 95

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035211-IQ

Incident Date
April 14, 2018

Between April 14, 2018, and August 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly intimidated an incarcerated person by
pointing to another incarcerated person who was using a walker and said, "You see that over there? I did that."

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 30 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. In
addition, the investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in a
setting that was not private or conQdential.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed the
Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, and completed its inquiry report on March 17, 2021, both after the
deadline for taking disciplinary action expired. Also, the investigator conducted the interview of the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit where the
incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the ofQce through
a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly compromised the
conQdentiality and privacy of the interview.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed the
Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, and completed its inquiry report on March 17, 2021, both after the
deadline for taking disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the Qnal interview
until 13 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until two months and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 12, 2020, six
months and 30 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, 13 days thereafter the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until March 17, 2021, 63 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

96 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035213-IQ

Incident Date
April 14, 2018

Between April 14, 2018, and September 9, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly stared at an incarcerated person in a
threatening manner.

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask the incarcerated
person who made the allegation relevant questions and did not conduct the interview of the incarcerated

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

person in a conQdential setting. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG
did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. In
addition, the investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who made the allegation relevant questions and
did not conduct the interview of the incarcerated person in a conQdential setting.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who made the allegation any questions about the
allegation.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted the Qnal
interview on January 26, 2021, and delivered its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17, 2021,
both events occurring after the deadline to take disciplinary action. Also, the investigator conducted the
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit
where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the
ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly
compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the investigator conducted his Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021,
one month and 19 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 97

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035215-IQ

Incident Date
April 14, 2018

Between April 14, 2018, and August 26, 2018, a sergeant allegedly stared at an incarcerated person in a
threatening manner.

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask the incarcerated
person who made the allegation relevant questions, did not conduct the interview of an incarcerated person in

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

a conQdential setting, and failed to interview the sergeant whom the incarcerated person identiQed as the
person who stared at him in a threatening manner. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and
incorrectly identiQed an ofQcer as the subject of the investigation. In addition, the investigator did not ask the
incarcerated person who made the allegation relevant questions, did not conduct the interview of an
incarcerated person in a conQdential setting, and failed to interview the sergeant whom the incarcerated
person identiQed as the person who stared at him in a threatening manner.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs incorrectly identiQed an ofQcer as the subject of the investigation. The incarcerated
person who made the allegation identiQed a sergeant as the person who stared at him in a threatening
manner, not an ofQcer.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who made the allegation any questions about the
allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator should have interviewed the sergeant whom the incarcerated person identiQed as the person
who stared at him in a threatening manner.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted the
Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17,
2021, both events occurring after the deadline to take disciplinary action. Also, the investigator conducted the
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce located in the same housing unit
where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated in the area, looked inside the
ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the interview, which signiQcantly
compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

98 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 26, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 17, 2021, one month and 19
days after the last interview. In addition, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two
months and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 99

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035306-IQ

Incident Date
April 19, 2018

On April 19, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door in a back and forth motion on an incarcerated person
to prevent the incarcerated person from entering the cell.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use a relevant
photograph during an interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, failed to ask relevant

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

questions during an interview, did not attempt to locate or interview ofQcers and incarcerated persons who
may have witnessed the incident, and did not attach an applicable policy as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry
report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion
regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to use a relevant photograph during an interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the
inquiry, failed to ask relevant questions during an interview, did not attempt to locate or interview ofQcers and
incarcerated persons who may have witnessed the incident, and did not attach an applicable policy as an
exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry
report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator failed to use a relevant photograph on December 8, 2020, during the
interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
To provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding the alleged misconduct, the investigator should
have attempted to locate and interview ofQcers and incarcerated persons who may have been percipient
witnesses to the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to present and authenticate a photograph of a housing unit during an interview of an
ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry to determine whether the photograph accurately depicted the
obstructed viewing angle from the control booth towards a particular cell door. The investigator also failed to
follow up and ask the ofQcer if she was familiar with the incarcerated person and his speciQc disability, and
failed to ask whether she had previously witnessed the incarcerated person have difQculties entering and
exiting his cell.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

100 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
one month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 101

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035307-IQ

Incident Date

On April 24, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person who was using a walker,
knocking the incarcerated person against a wall. Also, the ofQcer allegedly moved the door back and forth as
the incarcerated person attempted to enter the cell.

April 24, 2018

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use a relevant
photograph during an interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, failed to ask relevant
questions during an interview, did not attempt to locate or interview ofQcers and incarcerated persons who
may have witnessed the incident, and did not attach an applicable policy as an exhibit to the report. Due to the
poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to use a relevant photograph during an interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the
inquiry, failed to ask relevant questions during an interview, did not attempt to locate or interview ofQcers and
incarcerated persons who may have witnessed the incident, and did not attach an applicable policy as an
exhibit to the report. Additionally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, during an interview on December 8, 2020, the investigator failed to use a relevant
photograph during the interview of an ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator should have attempted to locate and interview ofQcers and incarcerated persons who may
have been percipient witnesses to the incident to provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding
the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to present and authenticate a photograph of a housing unit during an interview of an
ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry to determine whether the photograph accurately depicted the
obstructed viewing angle of the control booth towards a particular cell door. The investigator also failed to
follow up and ask the ofQcer if she was familiar with the incarcerated person and his speciQc disability, and
whether she had previously witnessed the incarcerated person have difQculties entering and exiting his cell.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

102 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
one month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 103

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037919-IQ

Incident Date

On May 1, 2018, after ordering an incarcerated person to drop a syringe he was carrying, an ofQcer allegedly
slammed the incarcerated person’s face into a wooden table and a second ofQcer allegedly jumped on the back
of the incarcerated person. The Qrst ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person not to tell medical staff how

May 01, 2018

Allegations
Battery
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

he received the injuries, and in return, the ofQcer would not issue a rules violation report against the
incarcerated person for possession of contraband.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four
months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

104 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037922-IQ

Incident Date

On May 7, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person's shirt and hair, pulled him up from the
koor, and punched him in the face and stomach, causing the incarcerated person to suffer lacerations, bruising,
and swelling to his face. On May 7, 2018, the ofQcer allegedly directed curse terms and other offensive

May 07, 2018

Allegations
Battery
Threat/Intimidation
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

language to the incarcerated person. On May 7, 2018, a second ofQcer allegedly physically assaulted the
incarcerated person, causing the incarcerated person to sustain lacerations, bruising, and swelling to the face,
and threatened to physically harm an incarcerated person again if the incarcerated person submitted a staff
misconduct grievance. On May 7, 2018, a third ofQcer allegedly prepared and submitted a false report
concerning a use-of-force incident and read the false report to the incarcerated person. On May 17, 2018, the
Qrst ofQcer allegedly retrieved food trays from an incarcerated person and threw them in the trash, and
allegedly directed an expletive-laden comment to the incarcerated person. Between May 14, 2018, and May
31, 2018, a fourth ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person that the incarcerated person was lucky that he
was involved in the incident with the Qrst ofQcer because, if it had been the fourth ofQcer, the fourth ofQcer
would have "stomped out" the incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 8, 2019. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one
year, ten months, and 3 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 8, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one year, ten months, and 3 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 8, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one year, ten months, and 3 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 8, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one year, ten months, and 3 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on August 8, 2018. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was August 8, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one year, ten months, and 3 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 105

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035997-IQ

Incident Date

On May 15, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly read an incarcerated person's legal mail in retaliation for the incarcerated
person's Qling staff misconduct grievances and other complaints against staff members. Between May 15,
2018, and June 30, 2018, a sergeant allegedly rewrote the incarcerated person's staff misconduct grievances

May 15, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Retaliation

and other complaints in retaliation for the incarcerated person's Qling staff misconduct grievances and other
complaints against staff members.

Overall Rating

Disposition

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information
obtained from an off-the-record conversation. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until two years, two months, and 11 days after the department learned of
the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed
to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information obtained from an off-the-record
conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal.” Also, the investigator failed to ask the
incarcerated person about the circumstances under which an ofQcer who was a subject of the inquiry
apologized to him for reading his mail.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. On December 9, 2020, the
investigator unnecessarily apologized to a sergeant who was a subject of the inquiry for asking questions
about the sergeant's alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 16, 2019. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority, one year, nine months, and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

106 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 16, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one year, nine months, and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s complaint and staff misconduct grievance on May 16, 2018,
and the deadline to take disciplinary action was May 16, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, one year, two months, and 11 days after the
deadline. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5,
2021, one year, nine months, and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 16, 2018, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations submitted by the incarcerated
person when he submitted a complaint and staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a sergeant to
conduct an inquiry. On June 12, 2018, the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, but did not sufQciently
investigate the complaint and staff misconduct grievance by interviewing other incarcerated persons or staff
and did not address all the allegations. On August 5, 2018, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring
authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person
subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct to the department.
On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the
allegations, Qve months, and 23 days after receiving the declaration. The investigator completed the Qnal
interview on December 9, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the Qnal inquiry report until
March 5, 2021, two months and 24 days after the last interview.The deadline to take disciplinary action was
May 16, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until
March 5, 2021, one year, nine months, and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 107

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035308-IQ

Incident Date
June 01, 2018

Between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly failed to respond to an incarcerated person's
report of being suicidal, dragged the incarcerated person by an arm to a cell, and slammed the cell door.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force
Discourteous
Treatment
Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not address in the Qnal inquiry report all appropriate
allegations as discovered during the inquiry, and did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach
a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 22 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques
when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not address in the
Qnal inquiry report all appropriate allegations as discovered during the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report, and
did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant facts and evidence. In addition, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions that would indicate whether the witnesses had an independent
recollection of the day of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview medical staff who worked in the building or at the treatment and triage
area at the time of the incident to determine if an incarcerated person was treated for self-inkicted wounds
during the time period at issue.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator used leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording. Further, the department inappropriately separated
the allegations in this case from the allegations in another inquiry case, even though the allegations all

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

108 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

stemmed from one incident; this separation resulted in inefQciencies and duplication of efforts as the
investigator interviewed all the same witnesses for both inquiry cases, used the same exhibits for both inquiry
cases, and produced two nearly identical reports for each of the inquiry cases.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on January 1, 2021. However,
the department assigned an initial investigator to conduct the inquiry on August 4, 2020.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator failed to address the allegation that the incarcerated person informed ofQcers that the
incarcerated person was suicidal and the ofQcers allegedly failed to respond. The department separated two
allegations from the same incident into two inquiries, which resulted in the inquiries failing to convey the
gravity of the allegations.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 4, 2020, six
months and 22 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 109

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035309-IQ

Incident Date

On June 1, 2018, through June 30, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly did not respond to an incarcerated person's cries
that the incarcerated person had self-inkicted cuts, did not render any medical aid to the incarcerated person,
and did not remove the incarcerated person from the cell he was in until the next morning.

June 01, 2018

Allegations
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty
Other

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all
relevant facts and evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did
not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 22 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques
when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not prepare a
Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant facts and evidence. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions to determine whether the witnesses had independent recollections
of the day of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and to failed to describe the items for the recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview medical staff who worked in the building or at the treatment and triage
area at the time of the incident to determine if an incarcerated person was treated for self-inkicted wounds
during the time period at issue.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator used leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording. Further, the department inappropriately separated
the allegations in this case from the allegations in another inquiry case, even though the allegations all
stemmed from one incident; this separation resulted in inefQciencies and duplication of efforts as the
investigator interviewed all the same witnesses for both inquiry cases, used the same exhibits for both inquiry
cases, and produced two nearly identical reports for each of the inquiry cases.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

110 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly rekects that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on January 1, 2021. However,
the department assigned an initial investigator to conduct the inquiry on August 4, 2020.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 4, 2020, six
months and 22 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 111

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035310-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly allowed incarcerated persons to engage in
physical altercations without intervening to stop the altercations, provide medical attention, or investigate the
incidents.

June 01, 2018

Allegations
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence, and failed to address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor
quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 22 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques
when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not prepare a Qnal
inquiry report that included all relevant facts and evidence, and failed to address material contradictions in the
Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions to determine whether the witnesses had independent recollections
of the day of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to to describe the items for the recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview medical staff who worked in the building in question to determine whether
medical staff witnessed any of the alleged incidents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator asked leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording. Further, the department inappropriately separated
the Qrst subject of these allegations in this case from the second subject of these same allegations into another
inquiry case, even though the two subjects were allegedly involved in the same incidents; this separation

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

112 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

resulted in inefQciencies and duplication of efforts as the investigator interviewed all the same witnesses for
both inquiry cases, used the same exhibits for both inquiry cases, and produced two nearly identical reports for
each of the inquiry cases.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on January 1, 2021. However,
the department assigned an initial investigator to conduct the inquiry on August 4, 2020. In addition, the
investigator failed to reference and include a summary of the interview he conducted with the second subject
of the inquiry on February 25, 2021, in which that individual gave information related to this inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator failed to address the contradiction that every incarcerated person whom the investigator
interviewed corroborated the allegations against the ofQcers who were the subjects of the inquiries despite the
denials of the ofQcers. The investigator's only explanation regarding the material contradiction was to discredit
all of the incarcerated persons who were interviewed by stating that they could not remember speciQc dates,
times, or persons for the physical altercations that occurred but he failed to note that the incarcerated
witnesses were expected to retain details for events that occurred two years and eight months prior to their
interviews.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 4, 2020, six
months and 22 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 113

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035311-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly allowed incarcerated persons to engage in
physical altercations without intervening to stop the altercations, provide medical attention, or investigate the
incidents.

June 01, 2018

Allegations
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence, and failed to address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor
quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 22 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques
when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not thoroughly and
appropriately conduct the inquiry, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant facts and
evidence, and failed to address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority 96 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions to determine whether the witnesses had independent recollections
of the day of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions when questioning he department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview medical staff who worked in the building to determine whether medical
staff witnessed any of the alleged incidents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator asked leading questions when questioning the department witnesses; this prevented a
determination of whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question.
The investigator failed to state for the recordings his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to to describe the items for the recording. Further, the department inappropriately separated
the second subject of these allegations in this case from the case involving the Qrst subject of these same
allegations into another inquiry case, even though the two subjects were allegedly involved in the same

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

114 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

incidents; this separation resulted in inefQciencies and duplication of efforts as the investigator interviewed all
the same witnesses for both inquiry cases, used the same exhibits for both inquiry cases, and produced two
nearly identical reports for each of the inquiry cases.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on January 1, 2021. However,
the department assigned an initial investigator to conduct the inquiry on August 4, 2020. In addition, the
investigator failed to reference and include in the Qnal inquiry report a summary of the interview he conducted
with the Qrst subject ofQcer on February 25, 2021, in which that individual gave information related to this
inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator failed to address the contradiction that every incarcerated person who was interviewed
corroborated the allegations against the two ofQcers who were the subjects of the inquiry, despite the denials
of the ofQcers. The investigator's only explanation regarding this material contradiction was to discredit all of
the incarcerated persons who were interviewed by stating that they could not remember speciQc dates, times
or persons for the physical altercations that occurred but he failed to note that the incarcerated witnesses were
expected to retain details for events that occurred two years and eight months prior to their interviews.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, three months and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 4, 2020, six
months and 22 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 115

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037870-IQ

Incident Date
June 01, 2018

Between June 1, 2018, and June 30, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly threw a disabled incarcerated person to the
ground.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four
months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

116 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037872-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed a disabled incarcerated person, who
was in a wheelchair, by the neck and slammed him to the koor from his wheelchair. The ofQcer then allegedly
dragged the incarcerated person to the incarcerated person's cell.

June 01, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Battery

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four
months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, four months and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 117

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037878-IQ

Incident Date
July 01, 2018

From July 1, 2018, through July 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed a disabled incarcerated person by the
throat and threw the incarcerated person from his wheelchair to the ground.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, Qve
months after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, Qve months after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, Qve months after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, Qve months after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, Qve months after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

118 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037926-IQ

Incident Date
July 01, 2018

Between July 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly called a disabled incarcerated person "crippled"
and made a belittling statement concerning the incarcerated person's being in a wheelchair.

Allegations

Disposition

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 12, 2021, two
months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 12, 2021, two months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 12, 2021, two months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 12, 2021, two months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until May 12, 2021, two months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 119

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037930-IQ

Incident Date

On July 4, 2018, staff allegedly ignored violence committed by incarcerated persons against an injured
incarcerated person, and an ofQcer allegedly made a demeaning statement to an incarcerated person
concerning mentally ill incarcerated persons.

July 04, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

Disposition

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

120 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034674-IQ

Incident Date

On July 6, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly cursed at an incarcerated person after the incarcerated person informed
the ofQcer that a Kool-Aid dispenser was empty, and the ofQcer continued to curse at the incarcerated person
while the incarcerated person ate his meal. The ofQcer, while in the presence of two additional ofQcers, then

July 06, 2018

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allegedly grabbed the incarcerated person's walker and threw it; aggressively searched the incarcerated
person; took the incarcerated person's eyeglasses and broke them; forced the incarcerated person to remove
his shoes, shirt, and pants; and forced the incarcerated person to walk back to his housing unit in underclothes.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use effective
interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews,
did not search for and collect relevant evidence, and did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all
relevant facts and evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did
not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not search
for and collect relevant evidence, and did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant facts and
evidence. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask any questions to determine whether the witnesses had an independent
recollection of the day of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
When questioning staff witnesses, the investigator used leading questions that prevented a determination as
to whether the witnesses had independent recollections of the day or the incident in question. In addition, the
investigator failed to state for the recording his actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or
exhibits and failed to describe the items for the recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview any incarcerated persons who lived in the housing unit with the
incarcerated person or who were housed in the cells next door to the incarcerated person who allegedly
returned to the housing unit wearing only his underclothes.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator failed to review the incarcerated person's medical records to determine whether the
incarcerated person did, in fact, order new eyeglasses due to his eyeglasses allegedly having been broken by
staff.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to interview any incarcerated persons who lived in the housing unit with the
incarcerated person or who were housed in the cells next door to the incarcerated person who allegedly

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 121

returned to the housing unit wearing only his underclothes. The investigator failed to review the incarcerated
person's medical records to determine whether the incarcerated person did, in fact, order new eyeglasses due
to his eyeglasses allegedly having been broken by staff. The investigator failed to state for the recording his
actions when he was showing witnesses photographs or exhibits and failed to describe the items for the
recording.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on January 1, 2021. The
department assigned an initial investigator to conduct the inquiry on August 4, 2020.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 1, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, one year, eight months, and 18 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 1, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted
its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, one year, eight months, and 18 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The incarcerated person Qled a staff misconduct grievance on August 1, 2018. On August 1, 2018, the prison
assigned an associate warden from the prison to conduct an inquiry. The associate warden conducted a cursory
inquiry into the allegations of excessive use of force. On September 13, 2018, after completion of the inquiry,
the hiring authority found staff did not violate departmental policy. Thereafter, on January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration describing the same staff misconduct allegation. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the same allegations on August 4,
2020, six months and 22 days after receiving the declaration. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was
August 1, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until April 19, 2021, one year, eight months, and 18 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

122 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037875-IQ

Incident Date
July 07, 2018

On July 7, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly placed an incarcerated person in a stranglehold, slammed him to the koor,
and repeatedly hit him. A second ofQcer allegedly kicked the incarcerated person twice in the face.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force
Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 9, 2021, four
months and 23 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 9, 2021, four months and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 9, 2021, four months and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 9, 2021, four months and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 9, 2021, four months and 23 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 123

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035275-IQ

Incident Date

On August 21, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly yelled at an incarcerated person, denigrated the incarcerated person
for being disabled, deployed pepper spray on the incarcerated person's face, struck the incarcerated person in
the face with a pepper spray canister, kicked the incarcerated person in the ribs and stomach, and stomped on

August 21, 2018

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force
Dishonesty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

the incarcerated person's back and neck. The ofQcer allegedly lied when he told a sergeant the incarcerated
person spat on him.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator asked leading questions,
did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, and engaged in off-the-record conversations with
witnesses. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. Also, the investigator asked leading questions, did
not ask all relevant questions during interviews, engaged in off-the-record conversations with witnesses, and
did not admonish the witnesses concerning conQdentiality at the end of interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During interviews on October 27, 2020, October 29, 2020, November 3, 2020, and November 4, 2020,the
investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions such as questions about the identity of witnesses, the
sources of information, or other allegations of similar misconduct.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During interviews, the investigator asked leading questions which did not facilitate obtaining important details
from witnesses, and the investigator failed to note for the record an exhibit shown to a witness.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department did not appropriately conduct the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed
its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action
was September 6, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on
February 2, 2021, one year, four months and 27 days after the deadline expired. Also, the investigator asked
leading questions, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, engaged in off-the-record conversations
with witnesses, and did not admonish the witnesses concerning conQdentiality at the end of interviews.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 6, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, one year, four months and 27 days after the deadline
expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 6, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, one year, four months and 27 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

124 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 6, 2018, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations at issue in this inquiry and
assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry. On September 7, 2018, the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated
person. On April 28, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate
departmental policy. On February 11, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration
setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct. On October 20, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, eight months and nine days after the
department received the declaration. The investigator completed the Qnal interview on November 12, 2020,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2,
2021, two months and 21 days after the Qnal interview. Finally, the deadline to take disciplinary action was
September 6, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority on February 2, 2021, one year, four months and 27 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 125

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0038976-IQ

Incident Date

On August 23, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly arranged and paid for an incarcerated person to take his cellmate’s
television, radio, and money. The ofQcer allegedly paid the incarcerated person with heroin. A second and third
ofQcer allegedly acted as lookouts while the incarcerated person took his cellmate’s property. A sergeant

August 23, 2018

Allegations
Misuse of Authority

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allegedly recovered the cellmate’s television and did not release it to the cellmate.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not properly identify all
allegations against staff and did not conduct all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality of
the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department began and concluded the inquiry after the
deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The investigator did not properly identify all subjects of the inquiry
and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
On September 18, 2018, an incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct grievance against three ofQcers
and a sergeant regarding an incident that occurred on August 23, 2018. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated
person submitted a declaration to the department containing another complaint regarding the same August
23, 2018, incident. Inthe declaration,the incarcerated person referred to the staff misconduct grievance he Qled
in 2018. However, in thedeclaration,the incarcerated person identiQed only one ofQcer as the subject of the
alleged misconduct.The OfQce of Internal Affairsinvestigator prepared for and conducted an inquiry only as to
the allegation against the one ofQcer whom the incarcerated person identiQed in the declaration as having
committed misconduct.Despite being aware of the prior staff misconduct grievance rekecting the misconduct
allegations against three ofQcers and a sergeant, the investigator did notprepare for all aspects of the inquiry
as he did not prepare to conduct inquiry work as tothe allegationsagainst the other two ofQcers or the
sergeant. In the OIG’s opinion, the investigator should have prepared to conduct an inquiry as to all potential
subjects, including the two other ofQcers and the sergeant because in the staff misconduct grievance the
incarcerated person clearly identiQed there were other staff members who committedthealleged misconduct
and the incarcerated person wrote and submitted the staff misconduct grievance closer in time to the incident
and the staff misconduct grievance contained moredetails. Furthermore, departmental records rekected that
the other two ofQcers and sergeant were on duty during the time of the incident, but the ofQcerwhom the
incarcerated personidentiQed in the January 13, 2020,declarationwas not on duty at the time of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
On September 18, 2018, an incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct grievance against three ofQcers
and a sergeant regarding an incident that occurred on August 23, 2018. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated
person submitted a declaration to the department containing another complaint regarding the same August
23, 2018, incident. Inthe declaration,the incarcerated person referred to the staff misconduct grievance he Qled
in 2018. However, in thedeclaration,the incarcerated person identiQed only one ofQcer as the subject of the
alleged misconduct.The OfQce of Internal Affairsinvestigator conducted an inquiry only as to the allegation
against the one ofQcer whom the incarcerated person identiQed in the declaration as having committed
misconduct.Despite being aware of the prior staff misconduct grievance rekecting the misconduct allegations
against three ofQcers and a sergeant, the investigator did notconduct an inquiry as tothe allegationsagainst the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

126 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

other two ofQcers or the sergeant. Additionally, the investigator did not interview the other two ofQcers or the
sergeant. In the OIG’s opinion, the investigator should have interviewed the other two ofQcers and the sergeant
because, in the staff misconduct grievance, the incarcerated person clearly identiQed there were other staff
members who committedthealleged misconduct and the incarcerated person wrote and submitted the staff
misconduct grievance closer in time to the incident and contained moredetails. Furthermore, departmental
records rekected that the other two ofQcers and sergeant were on duty during the time of the incident, but the
ofQcerwhom the incarcerated personidentiQed in the January 13, 2020,declarationwas not on duty at the time
of the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
On September 18, 2018, the department received a staff misconduct grievance from an incarcerated person
alleging misconduct against three ofQcers and a sergeant regarding an incident that occurred on August 23,
2018. On November 13, 2018, the department assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person.On January 19, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the
hiring authority did not identify any staff misconduct. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted
adeclaration to the departmentcontaining another complaintregarding the sameAugust 23, 2018,incident. On
March 29, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the
allegations, one year, two months, and 16 days after receipt of the declaration. Inthe declaration,the
incarcerated person referred to the staff misconduct grievance he previously Qled in 2018. However, in
thedeclaration,the incarcerated person identiQed only one ofQcer as the subject of the alleged misconduct.The
OfQce of Internal Affairsinvestigator conducted an inquiry only as to the allegation against the one ofQcer
whom the incarcerated person identiQed in the declaration as having committed misconduct.Despite being
aware of the prior staff misconduct grievance rekecting the misconduct allegations against three ofQcers and a
sergeant, the investigator did notconduct an inquiry as tothe allegationsagainst the other two ofQcers or the
sergeant. In the OIG’s opinion, the investigator should have conducted a thorough inquiry as to all potential
subjects, including the two other ofQcers and the sergeant, because in the staff misconduct grievance the
incarcerated person clearly identiQed there were other staff members who committedthealleged misconduct
and the incarcerated person wrote and submitted the staff misconduct grievance closer in time to the incident
and the staff misconduct grievance contained moredetails. Furthermore, departmental records rekected that
the other two ofQcers and sergeant were on duty during the time of the incident, but the ofQcerwhom the
incarcerated personidentiQed in the declarationwas not on duty at the time of the incident.Finally, the deadline
to take disciplinary action was September 18, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 18, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 17 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 18, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 17 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 18, 2018, the department received a staff misconduct grievance from an incarcerated person
alleging misconduct against three ofQcers and a sergeant regarding an incident that occurred on August 23,
2018. On November 13, 2018, the department assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry into the allegations.
The sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person.On January 19, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the
hiring authority did not identify any staff misconduct. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 127

adeclaration to the departmentcontaining another complaintregarding the sameAugust 23, 2018,incident. On
March 29, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the
allegations, one year, two months, and 16 days after receipt of the declaration. Inthe declaration,the
incarcerated person referred to the staff misconduct grievance he Qled in 2018. However, in thedeclaration,the
incarcerated person identiQed only one ofQcer as the subject of the alleged misconduct.The OfQce of Internal
Affairsinvestigator conducted an inquiry only into the allegation against the one ofQcer whom the incarcerated
person identiQed in the declaration as having committed misconduct.Despite being aware of the prior staff
misconduct grievance containing the misconduct allegations against three ofQcers and a sergeant, the
investigator did notconduct an inquiry as tothe allegationsagainst the other two ofQcers or the sergeant. In the
OIG’s opinion, the investigator should have conducted a thorough inquiry into all potential subjects, including
the two other ofQcers and the sergeant, because in the staff misconduct grievance the incarcerated person
clearly identiQed there were other staff members who committedthealleged misconduct and the incarcerated
person wrote and submitted the staff misconduct grievance closer in time to the incident and the staff
misconduct grievance contained moredetails. Furthermore, departmental records showed that the other two
ofQcers and sergeant were on duty during the time of the incident, but the ofQcerwhom the incarcerated
personidentiQed in the declarationwas not on duty at the time of the incident.Finally, the deadline to take
disciplinary action was September 18, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

128 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037839-IQ

Incident Date
August 25, 2018

On August 25, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly kicked dirt over a pool of blood to conceal an assault of one
incarcerated person by a second incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 17, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, two
months and 25 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, two months and 25 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, two months and 25 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, two months and 25 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasMarch17, 2021. The department poorly conducted the inquiry because it allowed the
deadline to take disciplinary action to expire beforecompletion of the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did
not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, two months and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 129

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034574-IQ

Incident Date
August 27, 2018

On August 27, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person as the incarcerated person sat in a
chair, leaned on the incarcerated person, and pulled some facial hair from the incarcerated person's beard.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs started and completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct the inquiry until one year, 10 months and 17 days after the department learned of the
staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to prepare for all aspects of the inquiry and failed to
provide admonishments concerning conQdentiality.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry. Prior to conducting interviews, the
investigator did not appear to know whom to ask, or what resources to pursue, in order to ascertain which
witnesses were working in a medical trailer where the incident allegedly occurred.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 10, 2019. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 17, 2021, submitted its inquiry
report to the hiring authority, one year, six months, and seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 10, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, one year, six months, and seven days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on September 10, 2018, and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was September 10, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, 10 months and 17 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on
March 17, 2021, one year, six months, and seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 10, 2018, thedepartment learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance. On September 10, 2018, the department
assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry. The sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, as well as other
incarcerated persons and staff members. On June 14, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring
authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person
subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct. On July 27, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, six
months and 14 days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

130 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

December 9, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until March 17, 2021, three months and eight days after the last interview.The deadline to take
disciplinary action was September 10, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report
to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, one year, six months, and seven days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and completed its inquiry after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 131

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037865-IQ

Incident Date

Between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, staff allegedly made discourteous and demeaning
statements to an incarcerated person.

September 01,
2018

Incident Summary

Disposition

Allegations

The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire prior to completion of the inquiry.

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Assessment

Overall Rating
Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, four
months and 16 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, four months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, four months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, four months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, four months and 16 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

132 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037850-IQ

Incident Date

On September 7, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly kicked an incarcerated person in the stomach and slapped him in
the face.

September 07,
2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 10,
2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4,
2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on September 10, 2018. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report
to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 133

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037858-IQ

Incident Date

On September 7, 2018. an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person's face into a chain link face and held
it there for approximately four minutes.

September 07,
2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 10,
2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4,
2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on September 10, 2018. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasSeptember 10, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report
to the hiring authority until June 4, 2021, one year, eight months, and 25 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

134 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035999-IQ

Incident Date

On September 11, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly harassed an incarcerated person in retaliation for Qling complaints
and staff misconduct grievances against staff. On September 25, 2018, a counselor allegedly arranged for the
incarcerated person to be transferred to another prison in retaliation for Qling complaints and staff misconduct

September 11,
2018

Allegations
Retaliation
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

grievances against staff.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions and failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because the OfQce of Internal Affairs began and
completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until one year, 10 months, and 13 days after the department
learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during
interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and failed to capture information obtained from an
off-the-record conversation.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
Theinvestigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for additional details when
the incarcerated person stated that a sergeant "brushed (him) off" when he complained and that ofQcers
referred to the sergeant as "bad news” and that he should not be working there. The investigator also failed to
ask the incarcerated person for additional details when the incarcerated person stated that a captain told him
he came to the prison because staff were “doing stuff illegal.”

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions during an interview of a sergeant such that the sergeant could have
inferred the expected responses to questions.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 14, 2019. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on March 5, 2021, submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority, one year, Qve months, and 19 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 14, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one year, Qve months, and 19 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s complaint on September 14, 2018, and the deadline to take

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 135

disciplinary action was September 14, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the department's second
inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, 10 months and 13 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021,
one year, Qve months, and 19 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 14, 2018, the department Qrst learned of a staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a complaint alleging that an ofQcer spoke rudely to him. On September
25, 2018, the incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct grievance which repeated the allegation.On
September 27, 2018, the incarcerated person submitted a complaint alleging that a counselor denied him a
transfer for a retaliatory reason.The department assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry. On October 13,
2018, the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person and the ofQcer alleged to have committed misconduct,
but the sergeant did not address the second allegation concerning the counselor.On October 13, 2018, at the
completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On
February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same
allegations of staff misconduct to the department. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an
investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, Qve months and 23 days after receiving the
declaration.The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on December 7, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, two months and 26
days after the last interview.The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 14, 2019.The OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one year, Qve
months, and 19 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and
completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

136 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036617-IQ

Incident Date
September 28,
2018

On September 28, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person face-Qrst against a wall and then
to the ground, which aggravated a previous injury suffered by the incarcerated person and which resulted in a
permanent change to the mobility and disability status of the incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Assault

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions and did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant questions and
did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the staff misconduct allegation until after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry
report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During an interview of the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, the investigator did not continue to probe
the statements and test the memory of the ofQcer when the ofQcer claimed not to remember the incident in
question. The investigator should have further questioned the ofQcer.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. The investigator expressed her opinion to the
staff witnesses that they probably will not remember the incident because it occurred a long time ago. This
encouraged staff witnesses to feign a lack of recollection of the incident.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 23, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on May 14, 2021, one year, six months, and 21 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 23, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on May 14, 2021, one year, six months and 21 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On October 23, 2018, the department received a staff misconduct grievance from the incarcerated person.
Thereafter, an associate warden conducted a cursory inquiry into the allegations of excessive use of force. On
August 30, 2019, after completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority found staff did not violate departmental
policy. On February 4, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration describing the same staff
misconduct allegations. On June 16, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a
second inquiry into the allegations, four months and twelve days after receiving the declaration. The deadline

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 137

to take disciplinary action was October 23, 2019, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 14, 2021, one year, six months and 21 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action. The department began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

138 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037856-IQ

Incident Date

On September 30, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly shoved an incarcerated person in the chest and knocked him over,
causing the incarcerated person to fall backwards and on to the ground.

September 30,
2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before the completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 17, 2021.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021,
one month and 23 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one month and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one month and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one month and 23 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 11, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasMarch 17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one month and 23 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 139

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034830-IQ

Incident Date

Between October 1, 2018, and July 31, 2020, ofQcers allegedly failed, on multiple occasions, to timely release
an incarcerated person to receive medication, and the incarcerated person yelled and kicked a cell door in order
to be released from a cell.

October 01, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary

Discourteous
Treatment
Neglect of Duty

Disposition

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Satisfactory

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on October 8, 2020. However, the investigator did not complete
the inquiry report until April 21, 2021, six months and 13 days after the last interview was completed.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

140 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035222-IQ

Incident Date
October 03, 2018

On October 3, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly gestured for an incarcerated person to enter a sally port, an area
incarcerated persons are not permitted to enter, for the purpose of intimidating the incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator
did not use effective interviewing techniques. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry
until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting the
interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation. During the interview, the incarcerated person
gestured to describe the length of an ofQcer’s baton as “about this long,” but the investigator failed to establish
on the record a quantiQable length.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the department
did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six months and 14
days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days
after the deadline.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 141

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035223-IQ

Incident Date

On October 4, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly threatened to cause an incarcerated person to become blind.

October 04, 2018

Allegations

Incident Summary
Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete the inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the department
did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six months and 14
days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days
after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

142 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037869-IQ

Incident Date

On October 14, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly provided a mobile phone to an incarcerated person as payment to
assault another incarcerated person, after which the assault occurred, causing the injured incarcerated person
to spend twelve days at an outside hospital.

October 14, 2018

Allegations
Battery
Contraband

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 7, 2021, four
months and 21 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 7, 2021, four months and 21 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 7, 2021, four months and 21 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 7, 2021, four months and 21 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 7, 2021, four months and 21 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 143

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037860-IQ

Incident Date
October 24, 2018

On October 24, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person to the ground and kicked him twice in
the head.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority decided not to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The
hiring authority had previously submitted the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the case on April 17, 2019.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 26, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one
year, three months, and 14 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 26, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one year, three months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 26, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one year, three months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasJanuary 26, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one year, three months, and 14 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 26, 2019. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasJanuary 26, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, one year, three months, and 14 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

144 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037908-IQ

Incident Date
October 24, 2018

On October 24, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person, pinning the incarcerated
person in the doorway for thirty seconds.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four
months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 21 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 145

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036217-IQ

Incident Date
October 28, 2018

On October 28, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly discharged a can of pepper spray onto an incarcerated person
without justiQcation.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department began and completed the inquiry into
the allegation of staff misconduct after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The department did
not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until one year, one month, and Qve days after learning of the
staff misconduct allegation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In an interview on January 12, 2021, the investigator failed to have an incarcerated person whom he was
interviewing identify himself for the interview recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs began and concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 10, 2019. On January 15, 2020, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry, and, on April 21, 2021, submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 10, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 21, 2021, one year, four months, and 11 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 10, 2019. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 21, 2021, one year, four months, and 11 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On December 10, 2018, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation at issue in this inquiry. The
department issued a rules violation report against an incarcerated person concerning the events that took place
on October 28, 2018. During a rules violation report hearing on December 10, 2018, the incarcerated person
reported to a lieutenant that an ofQcer discharged a can of pepper spray onto him during the incident of
October 28, 2018. On January 13, 2020, the department received a declaration from a second incarcerated
person, a witness to the incident of October 28, 2018, setting forth the same allegation. On January 15, 2020,
the department assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the staff misconduct allegation, one year,
one month, and Qve days after it learned of the allegation. Although the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

146 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

investigator to conduct the inquiry on January 15, 2020, the investigator did not conduct the Qrst interview
until June 29, 2020, Qve months and 14 days thereafter. The OfQce of Internal Affairs subsequently assigned
another investigator to complete the inquiry. The second investigator conducted the next interview on January
12, 2021, six months and 14 days after the Qrst interview. On January 12, 2021, and on January 13, 2021, the
second investigator completed eight of the nine total interviews for the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
completed three days of interviews in eleven months and 29 days from the date it Qrst assigned an investigator
to conduct the inquiry. Also, the second investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, three
months and eight days thereafter. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the
hiring authority on April 21, 2021, one year, four months, and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 147

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037705-IQ

Incident Date

On November 5, 2018, ofQcers allegedly tackled an incarcerated person, kicked him in the face, and dragged
him to the mental health building. One of the ofQcers called the incarcerated person derogatory names.

November 05,
2018

Allegations
Battery
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before the completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16,
2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6,
2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasFebruary 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

148 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035294-IQ

Incident Date

On November 10, 2018, two ofQcers allegedly failed to respond and assist an incarcerated person after the
incarcerated person intentionally cut himself.

November 10,
2018

Allegations
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority reviewed the inquiry report and determined that the OfQce of Internal Affairs had
previously conducted a full investigation concerning the allegations and, therefore, decided not to refer the
allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs again. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry.
The investigator failed to ask relevant questions, failed to complete thorough interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, and engaged in off-the-record conversations. Due to the
poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, because the OfQce of Internal Affairs had
previously conducted an investigation concerning the allegations, the OIG agreed that another referral for an
investigation was not necessary. On September 23, 2019, the hiring authority decided not to sustain any
allegations.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department assigned an investigator to conduct an
inquiry into allegations for which the OfQce of Internal Affairs had already conducted an investigation and for
which the hiring authority had already decided not to sustain allegations. During the inquiry, the investigator
failed to ask relevant questions, failed to complete thorough interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting interviews, and engaged in off-the-record conversations. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In three interviews on September 8, 2020, the investigator failed to ask multiple relevant questions during
witness interviews. The investigator also failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions and failed to seek
clariQcation to the answers given by the witnesses.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to witness interviews on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in
conversations with two incarcerated persons during which the investigator told the Qrst incarcerated person
that he should not have to worry about retaliation and asked the second incarcerated person if he was familiar
with the incarcerated person whose death was the focus of the investigation. After interviewing the second
incarcerated person, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a further conversation with the
incarcerated person during which he and the incarcerated person discussed the possibility of retaliation and
brieky discussed the death of another unknown incarcerated person. However, the investigator failed to
follow-up and did not inquire further of the second incarcerated person to ascertain the name and
circumstances of his death. In addition, the investigator failed to complete thorough interviews of three
incarcerated persons on September 8, 2020, when he conducted superQcial interviews, did not ask detailoriented questions, and did not clarify witness responses to questions.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 149

Prior to witness interviews on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in
conversations with two incarcerated persons during which the investigator told the Qrst incarcerated person
that he should not have to worry about retaliation and asked the second incarcerated person if he was familiar
with the incarcerated person whose death was the focus of the investigation. After the interview of the second
incarcerated person, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a further conversation with the
incarcerated person during which he and the second incarcerated person discussed the possibility of retaliation
and brieky discussed the death of another unknown incarcerated person. However, the investigator failed to
follow-up and did not inquire further of the second incarcerated person to ascertain the name and
circumstances of an incarcerated person's death. In addition, the investigator failed to complete thorough
interviews with three incarcerated persons on September 8, 2020, when he conducted superQcial interviews,
did not ask detail oriented questions, and did not clarify witness responses to questions.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was November 10, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one year, four months, and Qve days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was November 10, 2019. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one year, four months, and Qve days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On November 10, 2018, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations at issue in this inquiry. On
January 25, 2019, the hiring authority referred the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an
investigation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an administrative investigation, and the hiring authority,
on September 23, 2019, decided not to sustain the allegations. On January 13, 2020, an incarcerated person
submitted to the department a declaration setting forth the same staff misconduct allegations.Despite the prior
OfQce of Internal Affairs investigation and prior Qndings by the hiring authority, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
assigned an investigator on July 30, 2020, to conduct an inquiry into the same allegations, six months and 17
days after receiving the declaration. The investigator completed the Qnal interview on September 8, 2020, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report until March 23, 2021, six months and 15
days after the last interview.Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was November 10, 2019, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one
year, four months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

150 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036618-IQ

Incident Date

On November 18, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly punched an incarcerated person in the face and tackled him to the
ground. Other ofQcers also allegedly assaulted the incarcerated person.

November 18,
2018

Allegations
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not take action concerning the inquiry report because the OfQce of Internal Affairs
reported that the department had referred the allegations to an outside law enforcement agency. As of the
date of this writing, the outside law enforcement agency is reviewing or investigating the allegations.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry The department assigned an investigator to conduct an
administrative inquiry while an outside law enforcement agency either reviewed the case for a criminal
investigation or conducted a criminal investigation. In addition, on February 18, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry, and she conducted inquiry activities, but once the OfQce
of Internal Affairs understood the outside law enforcement's role in the case, it truncated its inquiry and
provided a report concerning its incomplete inquiry to the hiring authority on May 14, 2021, one year, two
months, and 26 days later.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Theinvestigatordid not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator did not Qnish the
inquiry because the investigator recognized during the course of the inquiry that an outside law enforcement
agency was either reviewing the case or conducting an investigation of the same incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator did not address any material contradictions because the investigator did not complete the
inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator did not address all appropriate allegations because the investigator did not complete the
inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not address all relevant policies and procedures because the investigator did not complete
the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department failed to recognize that an outside
law enforcement agency was already reviewing the allegations or conducting an investigation and, therefore,
the department should not have assigned an investigator to conduct this inquiry as it could have compromised
the outside law enforcement's criminal investigation. It was a waste of resources to begin this inquiry before
the outside law enforcement agency completed its work on the allegations. In addition, on February 18, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry, and she conducted inquiry
activities, but once the OfQce of Internal Affairs recognized the outside law enforcement's role in the case, it
truncated its inquiry and provided a report concerning its incomplete inquiry to the hiring authority on May 14,
2021, one year, two months, and 26 days later.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 151

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0038977-IQ

Incident Date

On December 16, 2018, an ofQcer allegedly told a disabled incarcerated person, "Shut the [expletive] up,"
when the disabled incarcerated person requested to take a shower. The ofQcer allegedly told the disabled
incarcerated person that, if he Qled a complaint, the ofQcer would have other incarcerated persons "[Expletive]

December 16,
2018

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

you up." On January 26, 2019, the ofQcer allegedly directed his kashlight at the disabled incarcerated person's
genitals while the disabled incarcerated person showered. The ofQcer allegedly arranged for two incarcerated
persons to threaten the disabled incarcerated person if the incarcerated person did not withdraw his written
complaint against the ofQcer. On April 18, 2019, an incarcerated person allegedly stabbed the disabled
incarcerated person in the back as retaliation for his complaint against the ofQcer.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not address all the allegations,
and did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed
that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until one year, one month, and 25 days after it received a declaration from an incarcerated
person containing staff misconduct allegations. The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not address all the allegations, and did not
include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry
report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask any questions of an incarcerated person about the sexual harassment allegation
against the ofQcer. The investigator did not ask for any examples when an incarcerated person said he had
observed the ofQcer engage in multiple acts of misconduct. Finally, the investigator ended an interview when
an incarcerated person began to volunteer examples of the ofQcer committing misconduct.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during interviews and did not ask appropriate follow-up
questions.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations until two
years, two months, and 22 days after discovery of the Qrst allegation, and one year, one month, and 25 days
after receipt of a declaration from an incarcerated person containing allegations of staff misconduct. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, one year, Qve
months, and three days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the earliest allegation and four months
and seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the latter allegations. Also, the investigator
failed to ask an incarcerated person any questions about one of the allegations.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

152 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report information that an incarcerated person said he had
observed the ofQcer generally commit numerous acts of misconduct and had heard the ofQcer say to another
incarcerated person, "Shut the [expletive] up." Also, the investigator included in the Qnal inquiry report the
statement that two of the witnesses felt the allegations were out of character for the ofQcer. However, the
investigator did not clearly report that one witness said the allegations were in character for the ofQcer.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator omitted material contradictions by not including all relevant facts from witness interviews.
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report that an incarcerated person said he had observed the
ofQcer generally commit numerous acts of misconduct and had heard the ofQcer say to another incarcerated
person, "Shut the [expletive] up," which contradicts statements in the report by other witnesses that the ofQcer
conducted himself appropriately. Also, the investigator included in the Qnal inquiry report that two of the
witnesses felt the allegations were out of character for the ofQcer. However, the investigator did not clearly
report that one witness said the allegations were in character for the ofQcer.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the allegations any questions about the
allegation of sexual misconduct by an ofQcer.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action for the latest allegations was February 4, 2021. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 11, 2021, four months and
seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action for the latest allegations was February 4, 2021. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 11, 2021, four months and
seven days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 8, 2019, the incarcerated person Qled a complaint concerning the allegation that, on December 16,
2018, the ofQcer made a discourteous statement and threatened him. On January 29, 2019, the incarcerated
person reported to the department that the ofQcer had directed his kashlight onto the incarcerated person’s
genitals while he showered. On February 4, 2020, the department received a declaration from the incarcerated
person containing the allegations that the ofQcer allegedly arranged for other incarcerated persons to threaten
the incarcerated person and that the ofQcer allegedly stabbed the incarcerated person. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations two years, two months, and 22 days
after discovery of the Qrst allegation, and one year, one month, and 25 days after receipt of the declaration. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report until June 11, 2021, one year, Qve months, and
three days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the earliest allegation and four months and seven
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the latter allegations.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 153

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035234-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2019

Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly told other incarcerated persons that a
certain incarcerated person was a child molester, thereby placing the incarcerated person's safety in jeopardy.

Allegations

Disposition

Discrimination/Hara
ssment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until seven months and four days days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation.
Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete the inquiry until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary
action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021,
three months and 17 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

154 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034789-IQ

Incident Date

Between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2019, ofQcers allegedly discussed harming an incarcerated person.

January 01, 2019

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary
Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use effective
interviewing techniques when conducting an interview, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all
relevant facts and evidence, did not the include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal inquiry report,
and had an off-the-record conversation during an interview. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because the investigator failed to use effective
interviewing techniques when conducting an interview, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all
relevant facts and evidence, did not the include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal inquiry report,
had an off-the-record conversation during an interview, and did not provide an admonishment concerning
conQdentiality at the end of each interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The department did not confer with OIG upon case initiation and prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading questions during an interview and, therefore, failed to establish whether the
witness had an independent recollection of the events in question.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on September 1, 2020.
However, the department assigned the initial investigator on August 27, 2020. The investigator failed to
include in his report a summary of the incarcerated person's statement that the incarcerated person wrote a
letter to the warden informing the warden of the alleged misconduct and that an associate warden responded
to the letter and failed to address the incarcerated person's safety concerns. The investigator did not attach
either the letter or the response as exhibits.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator failed to include a copy of the letter that the incarcerated person wrote to the warden
informing him of his safety concerns and a letter in response written by the associate warden both of which the
investigator had obtained during the course of his investigation.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, 62 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 155

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035209-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2019

Between January 1, 2019, and December 12, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly told an incarcerated person, “Don’t you
die on my shift. Why don’t you go down a different time?"

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry and failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to prepare for all aspects of the inquiry and failed to use effective interviewing techniques
during interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the
hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
During an interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, the investigator did not obtain or
make use of a diagram of the housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred or photographs of the staff
members allegedly involved in the incident to help refresh the recollection of the incarcerated person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator disclosed to the incarcerated person who made the allegation that the investigator had not
located any of his appellate paperwork and that a staff member told the investigator that none had been Qled.
Also, the investigator repeatedly asked compound questions during the interview of the ofQcer who was the
subject of the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in an ofQce
located in the same housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated
in the area, looked inside the ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the
interview, which signiQcantly compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview. Also, during an
interview on August 12, 2020, of the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing the staff
misconduct allegation, one of two investigators acted in a dual role, not only as an investigator, asking
questions during the interview, but also as a staff assistant for the disabled incarcerated person.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

156 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 157

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035228-IQ

Incident Date

From January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, ofQcers allegedly misappropriated the property of
incarcerated persons sent to mental health crisis beds by throwing the property away or giving it to other,
favored, incarcerated persons.

January 01, 2019

Allegations
Misuse of Authority

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and lied to a witness. Due to the
poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct the inquiry until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also,
the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques, and lied to a witness. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the incarcerated person reported
several allegations of staff misconduct other than the subject matter of the inquiry. However, the investigator
did not ask the incarcerated person sufQciently detailed follow-up questions to determine the extent of his
knowledge about those allegations, even though some of them pertained to allegations the department was
investigating in other inquiries. Also, the incarcerated person who made the allegations described the
incarcerated person who was the victim of the alleged misconduct as "about [his] height." However, the
incarcerated person was not asked, nor was it otherwise established for the record, how tall the incarcerated
person was.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews.
While off-the-record, the investigator informed a witness's representative that other witnesses were
interviewed without representation and that the interviewer intended to advise other witnesses to bring a
representative to their interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. During an
interview of an incarcerated person who asked for the identity of the incarcerated person who complained of
alleged misconduct, rather than answer truthfully or refuse to answer at all, the investigator provided the
incarcerated person with a false name.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

158 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April
19, 2021, three months and six days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 159

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035235-IQ

Incident Date
January 01, 2019

Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, multiple ofQcers allegedly failed to intervene in Qghts
between incarcerated persons.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not complete all
necessary and relevant interviews and did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until seven months and four days days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation.
Also, the investigator did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews and did not include all relevant
facts in the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The incarcerated person who made the allegation of staff misconduct speciQcally identiQed another
incarcerated person whom other incarcerated persons assaulted and knocked unconsciousand also that an
ofQcer was in the vicinity of the Qght but did nothing about it. In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have
made efforts to locate and interview the other incarcerated person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete the inquiry until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary
action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The inquiry report states that the the incarcerated person who made the allegation of staff misconduct
"provided no offender witnesses.”However, the incarcerated person speciQcally identiQed another incarcerated
person whom other incarcerated persons allegedly knocked unconscious during a Qght and also indicated that
an ofQcer was in the vicinity of the Qght but did nothing about it.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

160 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021,
three months and 17 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 161

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034908-IQ

Incident Date

Between February 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, an ofQcer in the administrative segregation unit allegedly
removed an incarcerated person from his cell; placed the incarcerated person in a holding cell; did not remove
his handcuffs; and did not allow him to use a restroom for eight hours, which resulted in the incarcerated

February 01, 2019

Allegations
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Use of Force
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

person's urinating on himself. The ofQcer allegedly placed other incarcerated persons from the administrative
segregation unit in holding cells without justiQcation and called them derogatory names.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not thoroughly conduct
the inquiry, did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other forensic evidence, and did
not include all relevant policies in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry into the allegations until Qve months and nine days after it learned of the staff misconduct
allegations. Also, the investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all
relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not complete all
necessary and relevant interviews, did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other
forensic evidence,, did not include all relevant policies in the Qnal report, did not provide an advisement or
admonishment at the beginning of each interview, and did not provide an admonishment concerning
conQdentiality at the end of each interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where the incidents allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, but the investigator should have done so.
The investigator did not obtain a copy of the operating policy for the administrative segregation unit, the area
where the incidents in question allegedly occurred, but the investigator should have done so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions during interviews. In addition, the investigator did not continue to
probe and test witnesses and subjects of the inquiry who alleged a lack of recollection of the incidents, but the
investigator should have done so.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading and conclusory questions during interviews of staff members, including ofQcers,
resulting in extremely short and conclusory interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The incarcerated person who submitted the complaint identiQed a particular ofQcer as being involved in the
alleged incidents. The investigator did not interview the ofQcer, but the investigator should have done so.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
This prison's administrative segregation units have video recording capabilities. However, the report does not

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

162 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

rekect whether the investigator attempted to obtain any potential video recordings, whether the investigator
secured them, or whether the investigator viewed them. In addition, the investigator did not contact medical
staff to determine whether any incarcerated persons were seen by medical staff for dehydration or urinary tract
infections due to being denied water or a restroom for the time period in question, but the investigator should
have done so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where the incidents allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, but the investigator should have done so.
The investigator asked leading questions during interviews. The investigator did not continue to probe and test
witnesses and subjects of the inquiry who alleged a lack of recollection of the incidents, but the investigator
should have done so. The investigator used leading and conclusory questions during interviews of staff
members, including ofQcers, resulting in extremely short and conclusory interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator failed to include the operating policy for the administrative segregation unit, which is where
the alleged incidents occurred, as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 4, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations until
July 13, 2020, Qve months and nine days thereafter. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on August
18, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report until December 17, 2020 ,
three months and 29 days after the last interview.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 163

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035158-IQ

Incident Date

Between February 1, 2019, and March 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person to the
ground and applied his body weight to hold the incarcerated person down, although the incarcerated person
was not resisting. A second ofQcer allegedly struck the incarcerated person on the neck and head with a baton

February 01, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

as the Qrst ofQcer held the incarcerated person down. Six more ofQcers responded and allegedly kicked the
incarcerated person and struck him with their batons while the incarcerated person was on the ground, causing
the incarcerated person to suffer a fracture to his left eye socket, a laceration to his face requiring sutures, and
bruising to his face, forehead, and chin.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 16 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. In addition,
the deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 14, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline
had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not conclude its inquiry until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 14, 2021. On June 29, 2020, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry and, on April 21, 2021, submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 14, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide
its inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline
had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 14, 2021. The hiring authority did not have sufQcient time
to request additional inquiry, if necessary, because the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry
report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, three months and seven days after the deadline had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department received the incarcerated person's declaration alleging staff misconduct on January 13, 2020.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until June 29, 2020,
Qve months and 16 days thereafter. Also, the deadline for taking disciplinary action was January 14, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its report until April 21, 2021, three months and seven days after
the deadline expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

164 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0038978-IQ

Incident Date

Between February 1, 2019, and February 28, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threatened a disabled incarcerated
person by saying, "You like writing us up? We're going to [expletive] your [expletive] up. We're part of the
Green Wall."

February 01, 2019

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not appropriately conduct
interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because, although the department learned of the staff
misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020, it did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry concerning
the allegation until March 29, 2021, one year, one month, and 26 days thereafter. Also, the investigator did not
ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not address
additional allegations of misconduct that arose during the inquiry, and did not include all relevant facts in the
Qnal inquiry report.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions during an interview on May 19, 2021, when an
incarcerated person gave several examples of other misconduct committed by the ofQcer who was the subject
of the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions during an interview on May 19, 2021, when an
incarcerated person gave several examples of other misconduct by the ofQcer who was the subject of the
inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
On February 4, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct submitted by the incarcerated person.
However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegation until March
29, 2021, one year, one month, and 26 days thereafter. Also, the investigator did not follow up on information
concerning further allegations of staff misconduct provided by an incarcerated person during an interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report additional allegations of staff misconduct that the
investigator learned about during an interview of an incarcerated person on May 19, 2021.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator reported that an incarcerated person heard the ofQcer who is the
subject of the inquiry say he was part of the Green Wall, but in a joking manner. (The Green Wall is a
purported gang of departmental ofQcers, the color green referencing the color of their uniforms.) The
investigator failed to report contradictory statements the same incarcerated person made later in the interview.
The investigator did not include in the report that the incarcerated person said the ofQcer “always had a green
kag with him.” Also, when the investigator asked the incarcerated person if he believed the ofQcer was serious

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 165

about being part of the Green Wall, the incarcerated person answered,“To me it was always in a joking manner,
but you see [ofQcers] like that and you know of Green Wall…I don’tbelieve, I believe he really probably was, or
is.” In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to report this statement, which contradicts the previous
statement by the incarcerated person that the ofQcer’s claim to be part of the Green Wall was just a joke.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report additional allegations of staff misconduct that the
investigator learned about during a witness interview on May 19, 2021.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 4, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegation until
March 29, 2021, one year, one month, and 26 days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

166 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037863-IQ

Incident Date

On February 4, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly failed to address an incarcerated person's safety concerns that
security threat group members threatened the incarcerated person, failed to address the incarcerated person's
medical concerns, and told the incarcerated person "I don't give a [expletive]. Go handle your business," in

February 04, 2019

Allegations
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

response to the incarcerated person's statement that the incarcerated person was suicidal. On February 12,
2019, the ofQcer allegedly again failed to address the incarcerated person's medical concerns and, after the
incarcerated person Qled a staff misconduct grievance against the ofQcer, the ofQcer said, "Am I supposed to
give a [expletive] if you kill yourself? If you don't already have a razor I would have given you one to kill
yourself. You didn't really want to hurt yourself." On February 20, 2019, after the incarcerated person's
cellmate told the ofQcer he intended to hurt the incarcerated person, the ofQcer allegedly failed to address the
threat. On February 23, 2019, the ofQcer allegedly tried to hire another incarcerated person to attack the Qrst
incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadlines to take disciplinary
action to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadlines to take disciplinary action were February 13,
2020, and February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until July 2, 2021, one year, four months, and 19 days after the Qrst deadline, and four months and 16
days after the second deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadlines to take disciplinary action were February 13, 2020, and February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, four months,
and 19 days after the Qrst deadline, and four months and 16 days after the second deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadlines to take disciplinary action were February 13, 2020, and February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, four months,
and 19 days after the Qrst deadline, and four months and 16 days after the second deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadlines to take disciplinary action were February 13, 2020, and February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 2, 2021, one year, four months,
and 19 days after the Qrst deadline, and four months and 16 days after the second deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the Qrst set of staff misconduct allegations on February 13, 2019, and the
remaining allegations on January 13, 2020. The deadlines to take disciplinary action were February 13, 2020,
and February 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 167

until July 2, 2021, one year, four months, and 19 days after the Qrst deadline, and four months and 16 days
after the second deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

168 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037861-IQ

Incident Date

On February 11, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly allegedly intimidated an incarcerated person by asking him
questions that included, "How was your attorney visit?"; "We already know that you weren't out there talking
to your attorney. You were talking to OIA [the OfQce of Internal Affairs]"; "Did you spell my name right?"; and

February 11, 2019

Allegations
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Assault

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

"What did they want to know?" On February 12, 2019, the ofQcer and a second ofQcer allegedly arranged for
another incarcerated person to assault the Qrst incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department handled the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 19, 2019, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations when the incarcerated
person reported the allegations to a clinical psychologist. On March 5, 2019, the incarcerated person submitted
a staff misconduct grievance repeating the allegations. The department assigned a lieutenant to conduct an
inquiry. On April 23, 2019, the lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person and Qve ofQcers, but did not
interview other incarcerated persons. On May 28, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority
determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On February 11, 2020, the incarcerated person
subsequently submitted a declaration to the department setting forth the same allegations of staff misconduct.
On January 27, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the
allegations, 11 months and 16 days after receiving the declaration. The investigator conducted the Qnal
interview on May 11, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until June 18, 2021, one month and seven days after the last interview. The deadline to take
disciplinary was tolled while the allegations were under review by an outside law enforcement agency and, as
of July 15, 2021, continues to toll due to pending related civil litigation.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 169

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034508-IQ

Incident Date

On February 14, 2019, as three sergeants escorted an incarcerated person, the incarcerated person allegedly
turned around and attempted to leave the escort and one of the sergeants allegedly rushed toward the
incarcerated person and threw him to the ground. The three sergeants then allegedly encouraged the

February 14, 2019

Allegations
Assault
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person to kill himself and picked the incarcerated person off the ground by the incarcerated
person's clothing and slammed him onto the folding shelf of a golf cart. OfQcers and sergeants then allegedly
dragged the incarcerated person into a sally port, jumped on him, and punched and kicked him on his legs and
upper body area. An ofQcer and one of the sergeants allegedly jumped on the side of the incarcerated person's
body, causing one of the incarcerated person's ribs to break. A fourth sergeant who witnessed the assault told
the ofQcers and sergeants to stop the assault. After the assault, the three sergeants and the ofQcer who
jumped on the incarcerated person's side, allegedly dragged the incarcerated person out of the sally port and
shoved him into an emergency transport vehicle. The Qrst sergeant allegedly threw the incarcerated person's
walker into the emergency transport vehicle, striking the incarcerated person in the torso and chest. A nurse
subsequently allegedly failed to document all of the incarcerated person's injuries. On February 15, 2019,
during a medical examination, the incarcerated person pushed a nurse's arm away and a second ofQcer
allegedly grabbed the incarcerated person by the throat and attempted to strangle him for ten seconds. The
second ofQcer and a third ofQcer took the incarcerated person to a holding cell. The second ofQcer allegedly
took off the incarcerated person's handcuffs and the third ofQcer allegedly shoved his Qngers into the
incarcerated person's throat area. The incarcerated person reported the incident and a Qfth sergeant allegedly
told the incarcerated person that, if he did not report the incident involving the second and third ofQcer, the Qfth
sergeant would provide the incarcerated person with the names of the Qrst, second, and third sergeants who
assaulted him on February 14, 2019, and would assist the incarcerated person with Qling a complaint against
the three sergeants.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not address all material
contradictions in the Qnal report, and did not include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal report. Due
to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding
whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation
was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not address all material contradictions
in the Qnal report, did not include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal report, did not provide an
advisement or admonishment at the beginning of each interview, and did not provide an admonishment
concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. Additionally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a mental health assessment form completed by a psychiatrist who evaluated
the incarcerated person on the day of the Qrst incident; a memorandum prepared shortly after the alleged
incidents by a psychology practicum student who submitted it to the chief deputy warden on March 8, 2019;

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

170 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

and a copy of the housing unit log that contained an entry for the alleged incidents involving the incarcerated
person. To prepare for the interview of a nurse who no longer worked at the prison, the investigator did not
obtain the nurse's notes and medical entries to assist in refreshing the nurse's recollection, but the investigator
should have done so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions during interviews. In addition, the investigator did not continue to
probe and test witnesses and subjects of the inquiry who alleged a lack of recollection of the incidents, but the
investigator should have done so.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading and conclusory questioning for staff member interviews, resulting in extremely
short and conclusory interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview a psychiatrist who evaluated the incarcerated person on the day of the
incident nor a psychology practicum student who submitted a written memorandum regarding the incarcerated
person shortly after the alleged incidents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint for a description of the
ofQcers who allegedly assaulted him. The investigator asked leading and conclusory questions during staff
member interviews, which resulted in extremely short and conclusory interviews. The investigator did not
obtain a mental health assessment form completed by the psychiatrist who evaluated the incarcerated person
on the day of the incident; nor a memorandum prepared shortly after the alleged incidents by a psychology
practicum student who submitted it to the chief deputy warden on March 8, 2019; nor a copy of the housing
unit log that contained an entry for the alleged incidents involving the incarcerated person. For the interview of
a nurse who no longer worked at the prison, the investigator did not obtain and have available the nurse's
notes and medical entries as a tool to refresh the nurse's recollection, but the investigator should have done so.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator's summary of the incarcerated person's statement only notes the discrepancies or
contradictions in the incarcerated person's statement. However, the investigator's summary does not include
the consistencies in the incarcerated person's account, such as the fact that the ofQcers he identiQed as
participating in the alleged incident were on duty that day according to department documents, the fact that
the incarcerated person had injuries consistent with his account of the alleged assault, and the fact that these
injuries were later documented on a medical form completed by medical staff two days after the alleged
assault. The investigator's report fails to note that the investigator completed a second interview of the
incarcerated person. The investigator's summary of the incarcerated person's interviews fails to note the
descriptions of the sergeants involved in the alleged assault. The investigator's report incorrectly states that a
nurse stated she was present in the exam room when the incarcerated person allegedly assaulted another
nurse, yet the nurse actually said the opposite, that she was not present.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to address the contradiction between the incarcerated
person's statements and injuries, which were consistent with an assault, and the denial by the sergeants that
they did not assault the incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not obtain the medical documents completed by a nurse who allegedly witnessed one of
the incidents. The investigator did not obtain a copy of the mental health assessment made by a psychiatrist

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 171

who spoke with the incarcerated person after the alleged incidents. The investigator did not obtain a copy of a
memorandum regarding the incarcerated person and the alleged incidents that a psychology practicum student
prepared and submitted to the chief deputy warden on March 8, 2019. The investigator did not obtain a copy of
the housing unit log book entries for February 14, 2019, to review for any notes concerning incidents that may
have transpired that day. According to the staff misconduct grievance inquiry report, there was an entry in the
log pertaining to the incarcerated person dated February 14, 2019, the date of one of the incidents.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 15, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, 10 months and
two days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 15, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, 10 months and
two days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On March 1, 2019, the department received a staff misconduct grievance from the incarcerated person and
assigned a lieutenant from the prison to conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant conducted a cursory inquiry into the
allegations of excessive use of force. On November 13, 2019, after completion of the inquiry, the hiring
authority found staff did not violate departmental policy. Thereafter, on February 4, 2020, the incarcerated
person submitted a declaration describing the same staff misconduct allegations. On July 13, 2020, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, Qve months and
nine days after receiving the declaration. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 15, 2020, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17,
2020, 10 months and two days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

172 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034677-IQ

Incident Date

On February 19, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly refused an incarcerated person's request for reasonable
accommodations, including the request for another incarcerated person to assist the incarcerated person in
traveling to a dining room for a meal and also a request to use a shower for persons with disabilities.

February 19, 2019

Allegations
Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not provide the
relevant policies and procedures as attachments to the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce
of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG
agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not provide the relevant policies and
procedures as attachments to the Qnal inquiry report, did not provide an advisement at the beginning of each
interview, and did not provide an admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a photograph of the incarcerated person involved in this case for use during
interviews. The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations from
incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who submitted the allegation. The
investigator did not attempt to locate complaints or staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated persons
in the same housing unit with the incarcerated person who submitted the allegation. The investigator did not
obtain a list of the incarcerated persons who worked as American with Disabilities Act assistants in the
buildings, who may have been potential witnesses.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to follow up with an ofQcer who indicated he was unsure if he remembered the
incarcerated person involved in the allegations; failed to ask witnesses the identities of ofQcers or staff who
were working on the day in question and could be potential witnesses; failed to ask any witness which
incarcerated persons were that worked as American with Disabilities Act assistants in the housing unit; and
failed to ask staff witnesses whether they saw any interactions between the ofQcer and the incarcerated
person on the day of the alleged incidents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use a photograph of the incarcerated person who submitted the allegations to refresh
the recollection of an ofQcer who was unsure whether he remembered the incarcerated person. The
investigator used leading and conclusory questioning during the interviews of staff members, resulting in
extremely short and conclusory interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 173

The investigator did not interview additional incarcerated persons from the same housing unit in order to seek
out additional potential witnesses. The investigator did not interview incarcerated persons who worked as
American with Disabilities Act assistants in the building, as they may have been potential witnesses. The
investigator did not interview other incarcerated persons from the same unit who also had disabilities to
determine whether the ofQcer in question also refused to provide assistance to them.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations from incarcerated persons in
the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation in this case. In addition, the
investigator did not attempt to locate complaints or staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated persons
in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation in this case.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not follow up with an ofQcer who indicated he was unsure if he remembered the
incarcerated person involved in the allegations; failed to ask ofQcers whom the investigator interviewed as
witnesses the identities of other staff who worked on the day in question and could be potential witnesses;
and failed to ask staff witnesses if they saw any interactions on the day of the alleged incidents between the
ofQcer and the incarcerated person. The investigator should have interviewed additional incarcerated persons
from the same housing unit in order to attempt to identify additional witnesses. The investigator should have
searched for other requests for reasonable accommodations from incarcerated persons in the same housing
unit as the incarcerated person who made this allegation. In addition, the investigator should have attempted
to locate complaints or staff grievances Qled by incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the
incarcerated person who made this allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for incarcerated persons
with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine months and
25 days after the deadline had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine months and
25 days after the deadline had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 22, 2019, the department learned of the incarcerated person's allegation from a written complaint
he Qled with the department. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2020. A prison
lieutenant conducted a cursory inquiry into the allegations of staff non-compliance with the disability
placement program policy. The department found no misconduct. On January 13, 2020, the department
received a declaration from the incarcerated person concerning the same alleged misconduct. On July 13, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation, six months after
receipt of the declaration. The investigator conducted his Qnal interview on July 22, 2020. However, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine
months and 25 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

174 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035236-IQ

Incident Date

On February 21, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly yelled at an incarcerated person and said that the incarcerated
person did not need a wheelchair even though the incarcerated person did, in fact, require the use of a
wheelchair.

February 21, 2019

Allegations
Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not provide the
relevant policies and procedures. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG
did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not provide the relevant policies and
procedures, did not provide an advisement at the beginning of each interview, and did not provide an
admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations from incarcerated persons in
the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation. In addition, the investigator did not
attempt to locate staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the
incarcerated person who made the allegation.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask witnesses the identities of ofQcers or other staff who were working the day of the
alleged incident and could be potential witnesses, The investigator did not ask the staff witnesses if they saw
any interactions on the day of the alleged incidents between the ofQcer and the incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading and conclusory questioning for the sole ofQcer interview, resulting in an
extremely short and conclusory interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview additional incarcerated persons from the same housing unit in order to seek
out additional witnesses. The investigator did not interview other incarcerated persons from the same unit who
also had disabilities to determine whether they were treated discourteously by the ofQcer who was the subject
of the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations from incarcerated persons
who lived in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation. In addition, the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 175

investigator did not attempt to locate staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated persons who lived in
the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to ask an ofQcer whom he interviewed the identities of other staff who worked on the
day in question and could be potential witnesses, and the investigator failed to ask the ofQcer if the ofQcer saw
any interactions on the day in question between the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry and the
incarcerated person. The investigator should have interviewed additional incarcerated persons who lived in the
same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation in order to attempt to identify
additional witnesses. The investigator should have searched for other requests for reasonable accommodations
from incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made this allegation. In
addition, the investigator should have attempted to locate staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated
persons who lived in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made this allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for incarcerated persons
with disabilities. In addition, the investigator failed to include the code of conduct for ofQcers in the Qnal inquiry
report.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary was on February 22, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine months and 25 days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2020. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine months and 25 days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 22, 2019, the department learned of the incarcerated person's allegation from a written complaint
he Qled with the department. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 22, 2020. A prison
lieutenant conducted a cursory inquiry into the allegations of staff non-compliance with the disability
placement program policy. The department found no misconduct. On January 13, 2020, the department
received a declaration from the incarcerated person concerning the same alleged misconduct. On July 13, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation, six months after
receipt of the declaration. The investigator conducted his Qnal interview on July 22, 2020. However, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, nine
months and 25 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

176 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035303-IQ

Incident Date

Between March 1, 2019, and May 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person
after the incarcerated person exited a cell and attempted to return to the cell, causing the cell door to hit the
incarcerated person on a shoulder and propel him to the ground.

March 01, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Poor

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 19 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. In addition,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 1, 2020, six
months and 19 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,
one month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 177

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034907-IQ

Incident Date

Between March 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, ofQcers allegedly entered the cell of an incarcerated person in the
administrative segregation unit, after which others heard the incarcerated person yelling and screaming. After
the incident, the incarcerated person required the use of a wheelchair and received medical treatment,

March 01, 2019

Allegations
Assault

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

including the placement of a cast on one of his arms.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not include all
relevant policies in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work,
the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and nine days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant
interviews, did not include all relevant policies in the Qnal report, did not provide an advisement or
admonishment at the beginning of each interview, and did not provide an admonishment concerning
conQdentiality at the end of each interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where this incident allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, but the investigator should have done so.
The investigator did not obtain the operating policy for the administrative segregation unit, the location of the
incident, but the investigator should have done so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions during interviews. In addition, the investigator did not continue to
probe and test witnesses and subjects of the inquiry who alleged a lack of recollection of the incidents, but the
investigator should have done so.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading and conclusory questioning for all staff member and ofQcer interviews, resulting
in extremely short and conclusory interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview an incarcerated person who suffered an injury to his left arm and left wrist
during a cell extraction that occurred between March 13, 2019, and March 14, 2019, but the investigator
should have done so. This incident is very similar to the incident described in this allegation and it occurred
during the relevant time period.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
This prison's administrative segregation units have video recording capabilities. However, the report does not
rekect whether the investigator attempted to obtain any potential video recordings, nor whether the
investigator secured them or viewed them.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

178 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, but the investigator should have done so.
The investigator asked leading questions during interviews. In addition, the investigator did not continue to
probe and test witnesses and subjects of the inquiry who alleged a lack of recollection of the incidents, but the
investigator should have done so. The investigator used leading and conclusory questioning for staff members
and ofQcer interviews, resulting in extremely short and conclusory interviews. The investigator did not
interview an incarcerated person who suffered an injury to his left arm and left wrist during a cell extraction
that occurred between March 13, 2019, and March 14, 2019, but the investigator should have done so. This
incident is very similar to the incident described in this case and occurred during the relevant time period.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report does not include an interview with an incarcerated person who suffered an injury to his
left arm and left wrist during a cell extraction between March 13, 2019, and March 14, 2019, which is very
similar to the incident described in this case and occurred during the relevant time period.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator failed to include the operating policy for the administrative segregation unit, the location of
the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 4, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by an incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
July 13, 2020, Qve months and Qve days thereafter. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on August
18, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring
authority until December 17, 2020, three months and 29 days after the last interview.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 179

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0038979-IQ

Incident Date

Between March 1, 2019, and March 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly taunted a disabled incarcerated person by
stating, "Write me up and be sure you spell my name right." Between April 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, the
ofQcer allegedly arranged for two incarcerated persons to threaten the disabled incarcerated person in an

March 01, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

attempt to dissuade the disabled incarcerated person from pursuing a complaint he Qled against the ofQcer.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry into alleged staff misconduct until two years and 22 days after it learned of the staff
misconduct allegations. Also, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques during an interview
of an incarcerated person and did not provide an admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each
interview. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques during an interview of an incarcerated person on
April 19, 2021, when the investigator presented several documents to the incarcerated person during the
interview without identifying the documents for the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department did not appropriately conduct the inquiry. Although the department learned of the staff
misconduct allegations on March 8, 2019, it did not assign an investigator to complete an inquiry concerning
the allegations of staff misconduct until March 29, 2021, two years and 22 days thereafter. Also, the deadline
to take disciplinary action was March 8, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the
inquiry report until June 18, 2021, one year, three months, and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 8, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its
Qnal inquiry report until June 18, 2021, one year, three months, and 11 days after the deadline had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 8, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its
Qnal inquiry report until June 18, 2021, one year, three months, and 11 days after the deadline had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the incarcerated person's complaint on March 8, 2019, but the department did not
assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry concerning the staff misconduct allegations until March 29, 2021,
two years and 22 days thereafter. Also, although the deadline to take disciplinary action was March 8, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring authority until
June 18, 2021, one year, three months, and 11 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

180 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037883-IQ

Incident Date

On March 18, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly punched an incarcerated person in the face. The ofQcer and a second
ofQcer allegedly took the incarcerated person to the ground, while the Qrst ofQcer placed his hands around the
incarcerated person's neck, attempting to cause the incarcerated person to lose consciousness. The second

March 18, 2019

Allegations
Assault
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

ofQcer allegedly punched the incarcerated person in the face and kicked him in the ribs. Four additional ofQcers
allegedly held the incarcerated person down and kicked the incarcerated person. The Qrst ofQcer then allegedly
released the incarcerated person's neck and smashed the incarcerated person's face onto the ground. Other
ofQcers allegedly watched the assault on the incarcerated person, but did not intervene. The following day, the
second ofQcer allegedly high-Qved another ofQcer and bragged about assaulting the incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
deadline to take disciplinary action expired. Therefore, the OIG did not agree with the hiring authority's
decision to refer the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation.

Overall Assessment
The department's handling of the case was poor. Although the department Qrst learned of the alleged
misconduct on March 19, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign in investigator to conduct an inquiry
into the allegations until January 25, 2021, one year, ten months, and six days after the department Qrst
learned of the alleged misconduct. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its inquiry and submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 19, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 25, 2021, one year, three months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 19, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 25, 2021, one year, three months, and six days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On March 19, 2019, the department Qrst learned of the alleged misconduct in this case. On April 3, 2019, the
hiring authority instructed an associate warden to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs, but he did
not do so. On May 27, 2019, the incarcerated person Qled a staff misconduct grievance which included an
allegation of excessive use of force. The department did not acknowledge or address the excessive use of force
allegation. On November 20, 2019, the incarcerated person Qled another staff misconduct grievance,
referencing the staff misconduct grievance Qled on May 27, 2019. On July 24, 2020, the department received a
declaration from a second incarcerated person concerning the allegation of excessive force against the
incarcerated person who Qled the staff misconduct grievances. On January 25, 2021, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the alleged staff misconduct, one year, ten months,
and six days after the department Qrst learned of the alleged misconduct. The deadline to take disciplinary
action was March 19, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 25, 2021, one year, three months, and six days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 181

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035237-IQ

Incident Date

On March 27, 2019, a lieutenant allegedly directed an incarcerated person to sign a form indicating that the
incarcerated person's reasonable accommodation request was resolved despite the issue not being resolved,
after which the incarcerated person signed the form because he was afraid of retaliation.

March 27, 2019

Allegations
Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not provide the
relevant policy and procedures. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG
did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry util six months after learning of the staff misconduct allegation. The investigator did not
adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, conducted only one interview, did not ask all relevant
questions during the interview, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary
and relevant interviews, did not provide the relevant policy and procedures, did not provide an advisement or
admonishment at the beginning of the interview, and did not provide an admonishment concerning
conQdentiality at the end of the interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations or staff misconduct
grievances from incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the
allegation to determine whether other incarcerated persons faced retaliation after Qling reasonable
accommodations requests or staff misconduct grievances related to issues of disabilities.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator conducted one interview. The investigator did not ask the incarcerated person whom he
interviewed why the incarcerated person was concerned about retaliation. The investigator failed to ask the
incarcerated person if he had witnessed acts of retaliation against incarcerated persons who suffered from
disabilities. The investigator also failed to ask the incarcerated person if he had ever been retaliated against in
the past after Qling requests for reasonable accommodations or staff misconduct grievances, which may have
caused him to be concerned about the incident in question.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not attempt to locate other incarcerated persons in the same housing unit who may have
experienced retaliation after Qling requests for reasonable accommodations during the same general time
frame.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations from incarcerated persons in
the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the allegation. In addition, the investigator did not
attempt to locate staff misconduct grievances Qled by incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the
incarcerated person involved in the allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not search for other requests for reasonable accommodations or staff misconduct

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

182 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

grievances from incarcerated persons in the same housing unit as the incarcerated person who made the
allegation to determine whether other incarcerated persons faced retaliation after Qling reasonable
accommodations requests or staff misconduct grievances related to issues of disabilities during the same time
frame. The investigators failed to ask the incarcerated person why he was concerned about retaliation; failed to
ask the incarcerated person if he had witnessed acts of retaliation against incarcerated persons who suffered
from disabilities; and failed to ask the incarcerated person if he had ever been retaliated against in the past
after Qling requests for reasonable accommodations or staff misconduct grievances, which may have caused
him to be concerned about the incident in question.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for incarcerated persons
with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, 27 days before
the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020, but did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 13, 2020, six months thereafter. The investigator
conducted one interview only on July 16, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry
report to the hiring authority until December 17, 2020, Qve months and one day after the last interview, and 27
days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 183

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037909-IQ

Incident Date
April 06, 2019

On April 6, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door and struck an incarcerated person with the door, and a
second and third ofQcer allegedly denied medical care to the incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Battery
Medical

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 2, 2020. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two
months, and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 2, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 2, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 2, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and four days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on May, 2, 2019. The deadline to take disciplinary
action was May 2, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

184 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037823-IQ

Incident Date

On April 23, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly unnecessarily deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person who
required the use of a wheelchair and hearing aids. Another ofQcer allegedly punched the incarcerated person in
the face, and multiple ofQcers kicked the incarcerated person while he was on the ground. Multiple ofQcers then

April 23, 2019

Allegations
Battery
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allegedly dragged the incarcerated person, without his wheelchair and hearing aids, to a holding cell and left
him there for more than half an hour without performing the required decontamination process for those who
have been exposed to pepper spray, after which the incarcerated person became unconscious. When the
incarcerated person later informed a sergeant he intended to report the ofQcers' misconduct, the sergeant
responded with an expletive and referred to the incarcerated person with a pejorative term used for those who
report the misconduct of others.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 1, 2020. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two
months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator failed to confer with the OIG upon case initiation, did not notify the OIG concerning the
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, and did not hold an initial case conference
with the OIG prior to conducting his Qrst inquiry interview.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, the investigator asked numerous
leading questions and supplemented the incarceration person's answers with information the investigator had
adduced from the declaration submitted by the incarcerated person and from information gleaned from a rules
violation report issued to the incarcerated person after the incident in question.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMay 1, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and Qve days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMay 1, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and Qve days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMay 1, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and Qve days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 185

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on May 1, 2019. The deadline to take disciplinary
action wasMay 1, 2020.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until July 6, 2021, one year, two months, and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
Prior to the commencement of the Qrst interview, the investigator did not provide the OIG with a copy of the
written inquiry plan nor his conkict-of-interest statement, as required.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

186 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036619-IQ

Incident Date

On April 24, 2019, ofQcers allegedly assaulted an incarcerated person after which the incarcerated person
suffered a broken arm, bruises, knots on his head, and bleeding from his mouth. A control booth ofQcer
allegedly pointed a Qrearm at the incarcerated person as he sought medical assistance for his injuries.

April 24, 2019

Allegations
Assault
Use of Force
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not take action concerning the inquiry report because the OfQce of Internal Affairs
reported that the department had referred the allegations to an outside law enforcement agency. As of the
date of this writing, the outside law enforcement agency is reviewing or investigating the allegations.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department assigned an investigator to conduct an
administrative inquiry after the OfQce of Internal Affairs had already initiated administrative and criminal
investigations and after the OfQce of Internal Affairs referred the criminal allegations to an outside law
enforcement agency to review the case or conduct a criminal investigation. In addition, on September 28, 2020,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry, and she conducted inquiry
activities, but once the OfQce of Internal Affairs realized outside law enforcement's role in the case, it truncated
its inquiry and provided a report concerning its incomplete inquiry to the hiring authority on May 14, 2021,
seven months and 16 days later.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator should have noted in the allegation that multiple ofQcers allegedly assaulted the incarcerated
person and that the incarcerated allegedly suffered a broken arm as a results of the assault.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Theinvestigatordid not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator did not Qnish the
inquiry because the investigator determined during the course of the inquiry that the OfQce of Internal Affairs
had already initiated an administrative and criminal investigation and that the criminal investigation was
referred to an outside law enforcement agency that was either reviewing the case or conducting an
investigation of the same incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator did not address any material contradictions. The investigator did not complete the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator did not address all appropriate allegations. The investigator did not complete the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not address all relevant policies and procedures. The investigator did not complete the
inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department failed to recognize that the OfQce
of Internal Affairs had already initiated administrative and criminal investigations into the incident, and that an
outside law enforcement agency was already reviewing the allegations or conducting an investigation and,
therefore, the department should not have assigned an investigator to conduct this inquiry as it could have
compromised the outside law enforcement's criminal investigation. It was a waste of resources to begin this

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 187

inquiry before the outside law enforcement agency completed its work on the allegations. On September 28,
2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry, and she conducted inquiry
activities, but once the OfQce of Internal Affairs realized the outside law enforcement's role in the case, it
truncated its inquiry and provided a report concerning its incomplete inquiry to the hiring authority on May 14,
2021, seven months and 16 days later.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

188 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035208-IQ

Incident Date
May 01, 2019

Between May 1, 2019, and May 30, 2019, on multiple occasions, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an
incarcerated person, causing the incarcerated person to fall during each instance.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry because the investigator failed to prepare for all aspects
of the inquiry and did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews. Despite the poor

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision that there was a reasonable belief
that misconduct had occurred, However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had already expired by the
time the hiring authority made the decision.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation and it
allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire. Also, the investigator failed to prepare for all aspects
of the inquiry and did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews. In addition, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain and use a diagram of the housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred or
photographs of staff to use during the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation to refresh
the recollection of the incarcerated person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator disclosed to the incarcerated person who made the allegation that the investigator had not
located any of staff misconduct grievance paperwork pertaining to the allegation, and that staff told the
investigator that none had been Qled. Also, the investigator repeatedly asked compound questions during the
interview of the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation in an ofQce
located in the same housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated
in the area, looked inside the ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the
interview, which signiQcantly compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview. Also, during an
August 12, 2020, interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing staff
misconduct allegations, one of two investigators acted in a dual role, not only as an investigator, asking
questions during the interview, but also as a staff assistant for the disabled incarcerated person.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 189

The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The hiring authority did not refer the case to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation until after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

190 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037632-IQ

Incident Date

Between May 1, 2019, and August 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly performed a search of an incarcerated person
and slammed his hands into the incarcerated person's genitals, causing the incarcerated person pain for two
days.

May 01, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Assault

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The investigator interviewed a witness in Spanish and did not
translate for the record the questions and answers from Spanish to English, nor did he secure a translator for
the interview. The investigator did not attach a transcript of the interview to the Qnal inquiry report with a
translation from Spanish to English so that reviewers of the report, including the hiring authority, could
independently review and evaluate the interview. In addition, the investigator failed to provide an
admonishment regarding conQdentiality at the end of two separate witness interviews
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
On March 16, 2021, the investigator interviewed a witness whose primary language is Spanish. The
investigator, who was kuent in Spanish, interviewed the witness in Spanish and did not have the questions and
answers translated from Spanish to English for the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two
months and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Also, on March 16, 2021, the
investigator interviewed a witness whose primary language is Spanish. The investigator, who was kuent in
Spanish, interviewed the witness in Spanish and did not have the questions and answers translated from
Spanish to English for the record.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
On March 16, 2021, the investigator interviewed a witness in Spanish and did not translate for the record the
questions and answers from Spanish to English, nor did he secure a translator for the interview. The
investigator did not attach a transcript of the interview to the Qnal inquiry report with a translation from
Spanish to English so that reviewers of the report, including the hiring authority, could independently review
ad evaluate the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 191

Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to
the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

192 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037910-IQ

Incident Date
May 01, 2019

Between May 1, 2019, and May 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly made a derogatory comment to an incarcerated
person and called the incarcerated person a “snitch.”

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four
months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, four months and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 193

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035274-IQ

Incident Date
May 14, 2019

On May 14, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly allowed an incarcerated person to assault a second incarcerated person
because of the nature of the second incarcerated person's commitment offense.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and 15 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation and it
allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 24, 2021.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing the staff misconduct allegations. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until September 28, 2020,
eight months and 15 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two
months and 11 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

194 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034514-IQ

Incident Date

On May 30, 2019, two ofQcers allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person's hands from behind while the
incarcerated person obtained a food tray, pulled both of his hands and arms high behind his back, and then
forcefully escorted the incarcerated person out of the dining hall. While exiting the dining hall, the ofQcers

May 30, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Use of Force

allegedly slammed the incarcerated person's head against the side of a door frame and then lifted the
incarcerated person off the ground, and one ofQcer twisted the incarcerated person's left arm until it broke.

Overall Rating

Disposition

Poor

After reviewing the inquiry report received on March 5, 2021, the hiring authority decided to take no further
action because, on August 20, 2019, the hiring authority had referred the same allegations to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. On September 18, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit
approved an investigation. An OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent then conducted a full investigation. On
June 12, 2020, the hiring authority reviewed the investigation and decided to dismiss an ofQcer involved in the
incident. The State Personnel Board revoked the dismissal of the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. An investigator conducted an interview, collected
evidence, and produced an inquiry report even though an OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent had previously
conducted a full investigation concerning the allegation and the hiring authority had imposed discipline on an
involved ofQcer. In addition to the inquiry for this case and the prior full investigation, the department also
conducted one additional inquiry concerning the same incident. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Furthermore, the
investigator did not employ effective interviewing techniques, produced an inquiry report that omitted relevant
information, and did not timely transmit items of evidentiary value to the OIG.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
In an August 19, 2020, interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator did not have available a
photograph of one of the ofQcers who allegedly committed misconduct to present to the incarcerated person
for identiQcation of the subject.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an August 19, 2020, interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator did not have available a
photograph of one of the ofQcers who allegedly committed misconduct to present to the incarcerated person
for identiQcation of the subject.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator conducted interviews, collected evidence, and produced a report concerning the allegation
even though an OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent had previously conducted a full investigation concerning
the incident, and the hiring authority had imposed discipline on an involved ofQcer. In addition to conducting
the inquiry for this case and the prior full investigation, the department also conducted one additional inquiry
concerning the same incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report a summary of a witness interview conducted on
August 13, 2020. Also, the investigator did not attach as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report a photograph the
investigator presented to an incarcerated person during an interview on August 19, 2020.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 195

disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, eightmonthsand 18 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action expired.However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs had previously assigned a special agent
to conduct a full investigation concerning the incident and, on June 12, 2020, the hiring authority decided to
impose discipline on an involved ofQcer.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021,eightmonthsand 18 daysafter the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs had previously assigned a special agent to
conduct a full investigation concerning the incident and, on June 12, 2020, the hiring authority decided to
impose discipline on an involved ofQcer.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 30, 2019, the department learned of the alleged staff misconduct at issue in this inquiry. On
September 18, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs approved the hiring authority's request for an investigation.
On September 20, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned a special agent to conduct the investigation. On
January 13, 2020, the department received a declaration from an incarcerated person setting forth the same
staff misconduct allegation. On April 9, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent completed his
investigation and submitted its report to the hiring authority. On June 12, 2020, the hiring authority, after
reviewing the investigation, decided to dismiss an ofQcer involved in this incident. Even though an OfQce of
Internal Affairs special agent had previously conducted an investigation concerning the incident and the hiring
authority had already imposed discipline, the OfQce of Internal Affairs on July 27, 2020, assigned another
investigator, a lieutenant, to conduct an inquiry into the allegation, one year, one month, and 27 days after the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not exercise due
diligence in determining that departmental staff had previously conducted a full investigation concerning the
incident and instead expended time and resources in having an investigator conduct another inquiry, including
producing an inquiry report, despite the prior full investigation and the imposition of discipline. In addition to
conducting the inquiry for this case and the prior full investigation, the department also conducted one
additional inquiry concerning the same incident.The deadline to take disciplinary action wasMay 30, 2020.The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report for this case until March 5, 2021, nine months
and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

196 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034515-IQ

Incident Date

On May 30, 2019, two ofQcers allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person's hands from behind while the
incarcerated person obtained a food tray, pulled both of his hands and arms high behind his back, and then
forcefully escorted the incarcerated person out of the dining hall. While exiting the dining hall, the incarcerated

May 30, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

person asked for the Qrst ofQcer’s name and the Qrst ofQcer allegedly slammed the incarcerated person's head
against the side of a door frame and then lifted the incarcerated person off the ground ,and the ofQcer twisted
the incarcerated person's left arm until it broke.

Disposition
After reviewing the inquiry report received on February 17, 2021, the hiring authority decided to take no
further action because the hiring authority had referred the same allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs
Central Intake Unit on August 20, 2019. On September 18, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake
Unit approved an investigation. An OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent then conducted a full investigation.
On June 12, 2020, the hiring authority reviewed the investigation and decided to dismiss an ofQcer involved in
the incident. The State Personnel Board revoked the dismissal of the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. An investigator conducted an interview, collected
evidence, and produced an inquiry report even though an OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent had previously
conducted a full investigation concerning the allegation and the hiring authority had imposed discipline on an
involved ofQcer. In addition to conducting the inquiry for this case and the prior full investigation, the
department also conducted one additional inquiry concerning the same incident. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator conducted interviews, collected evidence, and produced a report concerning the allegation
even though an OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent had previously conducted a full investigation concerning
the incident and the hiring authority had imposed discipline on an involved ofQcer. In addition to the inquiry for
this case and the prior full investigation, the department also conducted one additional inquiry concerning the
same incident.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, eight months and 18 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs had previously assigned a special
agent to conduct a full investigation concerning the incident and, on June 12, 2020, the hiring authority decided
to impose discipline on an involved ofQcer.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 30, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, six months and 19 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs had previously assigned a special agent
to conduct a full investigation concerning the incident and, on June 12, 2020, the hiring authority decided to
impose discipline on an involved ofQcer.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 197

On May 30, 2019, the department learned of the alleged staff misconduct at issue in this inquiry. On
September 18, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs approved the hiring authority's request for an investigation.
On September 20, 2019, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned a special agent to conduct the investigation. On
January 13, 2020, the department received a declaration from an incarcerated person setting forth the same
staff misconduct allegation. On April 9, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs special agent completed his
investigation and submitted its report to the hiring authority. On June 12, 2020, the hiring authority, after
reviewing the investigation, decided to dismiss an ofQcer involved in this incident. Even though an OfQce of
Internal Affairs special agent had previously conducted an investigation concerning the incident and the hiring
authority had already imposed discipline, on August 3, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned another
investigator, a lieutenant, to conduct an inquiry, one year, two months, and four days after the department
learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not exercise due diligence in
determining that departmental staff had previously conducted a full investigation concerning the incident and
instead expended time and resources in having an investigator conduct another inquiry, including producing an
inquiry report, despite the prior full investigation and the imposition of discipline. In addition to conducting the
inquiry for this case and the prior full investigation, the department also conducted one additional inquiry
concerning the same incident.

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

198 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036007-IQ

Incident Date
May 30, 2019

Between May 30, 2019, and January 8, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly harassed an incarcerated person by making
sarcastic statements while smiling, such as, "Oh, your arm is still broke [sic]?"

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Incident Summary

Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator
to conduct the inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegations. The
investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting a witness interview. The
department did not timely transmit items of evidentiary value to the OIG. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
completed its Qnal inquiry report and submitted it to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an interview on August 27, 2020, the investigator allowed a witness's representative to intimidate him. The
investigator unnecessarily apologized and provided justiQcations regarding why he had to ask questions that
were within the scope of the the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In an interview on August 27, 2020, the investigator allowed a witness' representative to intimidate him. The
investigator unnecessarily apologized and provided justiQcations as to why he had to ask questions which were
within the scope of the the inquiry.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the
inquiry report for this case until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the
inquiry report for this case until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received a declaration from an incarcerated person setting forth staff
misconduct allegations at issue in this inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline to take disciplinary
action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days later.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 199

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035988-IQ

Incident Date
June 01, 2019

Between June 1, 2019, and September 25, 2019, ofQcers allegedly conspired with incarcerated persons and
introduced methamphetamine and heroin into a prison.

Allegations

Disposition

Controlled
Substances

The hiring authority identiQed potential staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs
for a criminal investigation. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit rejected the hiring authority's request for an investigation.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not timely complete the inquiry report, as it allowed the deadline to take
disciplinary action to expire. The hiring authority did not use due diligence in reviewing the case materials and
initially decided not to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit, but then changed
his mind after considering the purported recommendation of the OfQce of Internal Affairs to refer the matter to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for a criminal investigation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs later
reported that the investigator included incorrect information in the Qnal inquiry report regarding the
recommendation and that it was not the recommendation of the OfQce of Internal Affairs that the hiring
authority refer the case for an investigation. Lastly, the department did not timely provide the OIG with
requested case materials.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not conduct an appropriate inquiry. The investigator submitted a report that contained
incorrect information. The investigator submitted a Qnal inquiry report that included a recommendation to the
hiring authority that the hiring authority submit the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for
an investigation. At Qrst, the hiring authority declined to refer the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit but, upon rekecting on the investigator's recommendation for an investigation, the hiring authority
changed his mind and decided to submit a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs later informed the OIG that the investigator's recommendation was erroneous and that
it was not the recommendation of the OfQce of Internal Affairs that the hiring authority refer the case to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator submitted a Qnal inquiry report that included a recommendation to the hiring authority that
the hiring authority submit the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. At
Qrst, the hiring authority declined to refer the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit but, upon
rekecting on the investigator's recommendation for an investigation, the hiring authority changed his mind and
decided to submit a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs later informed the OIG that the investigator's recommendation included in the report was
erroneous and that it was not the recommendation of the OfQce of Internal Affairs that the hiring authority refer
the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

200 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
However, although the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired, there still existed time for the
department to conduct a criminal investigation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration containing allegations of
staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary
action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and
submit it to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Also, in the OIG's opinion, the hiring authority did not use due diligence. The hiring authority received Qve cases
related to the incarcerated person on the same day, February 2, 2021, consisting of approximately nine hours
of recorded interviews, 157 pages of exhibits, and 49 pages of inquiry reports. The hiring authority admitted in
one case that he did not review all of the interview recordings. In addition, the hiring authority made decisions
on the dispositions of all Qve cases on the same day he received the case materials.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings on January 26, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 201

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035271-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 1, 2019, and August 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly nearly closed a sally port door on an
incarcerated person, laughed at the incarcerated person, and denied the incarcerated person extra toilet paper
as a reasonable accommodation.

June 01, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to follow up and
clarify answers given by the incarcerated person who made the allegations, inappropriately revealed
information to the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, and did not complete all necessary and relevant
interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and 15 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to follow up and clarify answers given by the incarcerated person who made the allegations,
inappropriately revealed information to the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, and did not complete all
necessary and relevant interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry
report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, during the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the investigator
failed to ask follow-up questions to explain or clarify an apparent contradiction in the incarcerated person's
statement that an ofQcer witnessed the incident yet simultaneously looked away.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Before asking substantive questions of the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, the investigator disclosed
to the ofQcer that the incarcerated person previously stated that he had Qled a complaint concerning the
ofQcer's alleged misconduct, but that the investigator could not locate any such complaint; thereby, the
investigator needlessly disclosed to the ofQcer that the investigator did not have certain documentary evidence,
and potentially gave rise to an inference that the incarcerated person may not be credible.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have interviewed a sergeant to whom the incarcerated person who
made the allegations claimed to have reported one of the allegations.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The
deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the
deadline.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

202 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, an
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing staff misconduct allegations. However, the department
did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations until September 28, 2020, eight
months and 15 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two
months and 11 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 203

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037916-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 1, 2019, and August 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threw a handcuffed incarcerated person to
the ground and put his knee on the incarcerated person's back. Seven additional ofQcers allegedly placed their
knees onto the restrained incarcerated person's back and forced his head on the ground with their Qsts.

June 01, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Use of Force

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 5, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

204 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036003-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 2, 2019, and June 4, 2019, as an incarcerated person attempted to receive medical help near a
medication distribution line on a yard, an ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person that the incarcerated
person could not get help because the incarcerated person did not have a medical emergency. When medical

June 02, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty

staff tried to examine the incarcerated person, the ofQcer allegedly ordered them not to check on the
incarcerated person and that the incarcerated person was feigning an illness.

Overall Rating

Disposition

Poor

The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry because the investigator did not use effective
interviewing techniques and did not ask all relevant questions. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG
agreed with the hiring authority’s decision that there was a reasonable belief that misconduct had occurred,
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had already expired by the time the hiring authority made the
decision. On August 31, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings as to whether misconduct occurred and
did not impose corrective action or discipline against the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator
to conduct the inquiry until six months and 14 days after it received the staff misconduct allegation from the
incarcerated person. The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, engaged in off-the-record conversations, and
did not include all relevant facts and evidence in the Qnal inquiry report. The department did not timely
transmit items of evidentiary value to the OIG. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry
report and submitted it to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on August 26, 2020, the investigator showed the incarcerated person
several photographs of ofQcers to assist in identiQcation purposes. However, none of the ofQcers depicted in
the photographs resembled the ofQcer in question.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions during a witness interview of an
incarcerated person on September 9, 2020. The investigator did not ask all relevant questions concerning the
relationship between the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and ofQcer who was the subject of
the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not use proper interviewing techniques when the investigator did not
set a clear record regarding photograph exhibits and did not clarify for the record which exhibits a witness
referred to in multiple interviews on December 2, 2020.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on August 26, 2020, the investigator showed the incarcerated person
several photographs of ofQcers. However, none of the ofQcers depicted in the photographs resembled the
ofQcer in question. Furthermore, the investigator only asked the incarcerated person whether the incarcerated
person recognized the ofQcer, not whether the photograph actually depicted the ofQcer in question.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 205

In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to document that during an interview of the incarcerated
person who submitted the misconduct allegation, the investigator showed the incarcerated person six
individual photographs of staff members. The investigator failed to document in the Qnal inquiry report that the
incarcerated person who submitted the misconduct allegation could not identify any of the individuals depicted
in the photographs. In addition, the investigator failed to include the six individual photographs as exhibits to
the Qnal inquiry report.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to document that during an interview of the incarcerated
person who submitted the misconduct allegation, the investigator showed the incarcerated person six
individual photographs of staff members. The investigator failed to document in the Qnal inquiry report that the
incarcerated person who submitted the misconduct allegation could not identify any of the individuals depicted
in the photographs. Additionally, the investigator failed to include the six individual photographs as exhibits to
the Qnal inquiry report.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the
inquiry report for this case until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days thereafter.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the
inquiry report for this case until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days thereafter.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration setting forth staff
misconduct allegations. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry until
July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13,
2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the Qnal inquiry report
until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

206 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036620-IQ

Incident Date
June 04, 2019

On June 4, 2019, a control booth ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door and struck an incarcerated person with the
door.

Allegations

Disposition

Assault
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
Although the OIG agreed that a reasonable belief of staff misconduct existed, the OIG did not agree with the
hiring authority’s decision to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs since the deadline to take

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

disciplinary action had expired. On May 19, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit approved an
investigation. However, because the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not conduct an investigation. On August 2, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings regarding
whether misconduct occurred and did not impose corrective action or discipline against the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. Although the department learned of the staff misconduct
allegation on July 12, 2019, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry concerning the
allegation until February 18, 2020, seven months and six days thereafter. The investigator did not provide an
admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 13, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, ten months and 27 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 13, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, ten months and 27 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 13, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10, 2021, ten months and 27 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on June 13, 2019. On February 4, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing the same staff misconduct allegation. The department
did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry concerning the allegation until February 18, 2020, seven
months and six days after learning of the allegation. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was June 13,
2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 10,
2021, ten months and 27 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 207

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035985-IQ

Incident Date

Between June 17, 2019, and July 27, 2019, an ofQcer assigned to a housing unit allegedly departed the
housing unit multiple times, but he left the housing unit locked, which caused incarcerated persons to be
unable to take showers or to participate in dayroom activities during the ofQcer's absence.

June 17, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decision.

Poor

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired. The hiring authority did not use due diligence in reviewing the case materials. Finally, the
department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case materials.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator completed the Qnal interview on October 14, 2020, and the deadline for taking disciplinary
action was not until January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal report
until February 2, 2021, three months and 19 after the Qnal interview, and 20 days after the deadline for taking
disciplinary action had expired.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report relevant facts from two
incarcerated persons that conQrmed that a group of disabled incarcerated persons routinely did not receive
their scheduled showers because an ofQcer left the housing unit, locked it down, and the disabled incarcerated
persons were then "missed" for showers, not delayed, but denied showers. One incarcerated person noted in
an interview on October 14, 2020, that he never knew whether he would get a shower or not and that he could
never count on it. Also, the same witness told the investigator that the same ofQcer left the housing unit two to
three times a week, and disabled incarcerated persons did not receive their showers. A second incarcerated
person interviewed on October 14, 2020, told the investigator,“We’ve all been denied for shower,” that it’s
"just something that you live with,”and that being denied showers was "just par for the course here.” In
addition, the second incarcerated person stated the ofQcer socialized with other ofQcers not assigned to the
housing unit both inside and outside of the housing unit. These facts should have been included in the inquiry
report because they corroborate the incarcerated person's allegation of potential staff misconduct by
supporting his allegation that disabled incarcerated persons routinely did not receive their scheduled showers,
and the ofQcer involved did not always have justiQcation for leaving the housing unit.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline for the department to take disciplinary action against the ofQcerwas January 13, 2021. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and interview recordings
until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

208 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline for the department to take disciplinary action against the ofQcerwas January 13, 2021. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and interview recordings
until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration containing allegations of
staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary
action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and
submit it to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Also, in the OIG's opinion, the hiring authority did not use due diligence. The hiring authority received Qve cases
related to the incarcerated person on the same day, February 2, 2021. The case materials consisted of
approximately nine hours of recorded interviews, 157 pages of exhibits, and 49 pages of inquiry reports. The
hiring authority admitted in one case that he did not review all of the interview recordings. In addition, the
hiring authority made decisions on the dispositions of all Qve cases on the same day he received the case
materials.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 26,
2021, but the department did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 209

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034516-IQ

Incident Date

On June 21, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threw an incarcerated person to the ground. A second, third, and fourth
ofQcer allegedly observed the Qrst ofQcer's use force on the incarcerated person. All four ofQcers allegedly
failed to report the use of force and failed to secure medical attention for the incarcerated person. On August

June 21, 2019

Allegations
Dishonesty
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

27, 2020, the second and third ofQcer allegedly lied about the incident during an interview. On September 2,
2020, the fourth ofQcer allegedly lied about the incident during an interview.

Disposition
The OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned two different investigators to inquire into the allegations pursuant to
two separate inquiries. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted both inquiries because the investigators
did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not
include all relevant facts in the inquiry reports. On December 31, 2020, the hiring authority identiQed potential
staff misconduct and referred allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an
investigation based on information both investigators gathered during both inquiries, but before the
investigators submitted their inquiry reports. Despite the poor quality of the inquiries, the OIG agreed with the
hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit for an
investigation. On April 14, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit approved an investigation.
The investigator identiQed additional allegations in the inquiry report: that three of the ofQcers were dishonest
during their inquiry interviews on August 27, 2020, and September 2, 2020. However, because the investigator
for this case did not submit the Qnal inquiry report until February 2, 2021, those allegations were not included
with the referral submitted on December 31, 2020, and were therefore never addressed by the hiring authority
or by the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. On July 6, 2021, the hiring authority, after reviewing the
evidence, decided not to impose discipline against any of the ofQcers for any of the allegations.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted. The OfQce of Internal Affairs wasted resources by
assigning two different investigators to inquire into the allegations. Also, the investigator for this case did not
ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include
all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry reports. Additionally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired as to the
alleged misconduct that occurred on June 21, 2019. During this inquiry, the OfQce of Internal Affairs discovered
additional dishonesty allegations which allegedly occurred on August 27, 2020, and September 2, 2020. The
investigator added the allegations to the Qnal inquiry report. However, before receiving the Qnal inquiry report
on February 2, 2021, the hiring authority referred the original allegations to OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit on December 31, 2020. After receiving the Qnal inquiry report, the hiring authority did not address
the dishonesty allegations or refer them to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. Finally, the
department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case materials.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during an interview on September 2, 2020. The investigator
failed to lay a proper foundation with a witness to ensure they were discussing the same person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during an interview on September 2, 2020. Also, the investigator repeatedly asked the same witness
irrelevant questions about an ofQcer the witness stated he did not know.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

210 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report after the deadline to take disciplinary action for
the June 21, 2019, allegations had expired. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs wasted resources by assigning
two different investigators to conduct inquiry work regarding the same allegations. The deadline to take
disciplinary action for the initial set of allegations was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did
not complete the inquiry report until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action
expired. The investigator added additional allegations to the Qnal inquiry report, but the hiring authority did not
address them.Finally, the department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case materials.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report did not include a synopsis of an interview that another investigator conducted with the
incarcerated person who was the victim of the alleged staff misconduct.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action for the misconduct that allegedly occurred on June 21, 2019, was
January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce ofInternal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority for the additionally discovered misconduct that
allegedly occurred on August 27, 2020, and September 2, 2020. However, the hiring authority had already
determined on December 30, 2020, that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the
matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.After receiving the Qnal inquiry report, the hiring
authority did not address the dishonesty allegations or refer them to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake
Unit. Finally, the department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case materials.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline for taking disciplinary action for the misconduct which allegedly occurred on June 21, 2019, was
January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce ofInternal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority for the additionally discovered misconduct which allegedly occurred
on August 27, 2020, and September 2, 2020. However, the hiring authority had already determined on
December 30, 2020, that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and submitted the matter to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit.After receiving the Qnal inquiry report, the hiring authority did not address
the dishonesty allegations or refer them to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit. Lastly, the
department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case materials.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegations submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until July 27, 2020, six months and
14 days thereafter. The investigator completed the Qnal interview on October 29, 2020. The deadline for
taking disciplinary action for the Qrst set of allegations was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline
had expired. However, the hiring authority had already determined on December 31, 2020, that there was a
reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake
Unit based on informationinvestigators gathered during twodifferent inquiries,but before theinvestigators
submitted their inquiry reports. The investigator added additional allegations to the Qnal inquiry report, but the
hiring authority did not address them. Also, the hiring authority received Qve cases related to the one
incarcerated person on the same day, February 2, 2021, which consisted of approximately nine hours of
recorded interviews, 157 pages of exhibits, and 49 pages of inquiry reports. The hiring authority admitted in
one case that he did not review all the interview recordings. In addition, the hiring authority made decisions on
the dispositions of all Qve cases on the same day he received the case materials.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 211

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 26,
2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

212 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035233-IQ

Incident Date

On June 21, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threw an incarcerated person to the ground. A second ofQcer allegedly
observed the Qrst ofQcer's use force on the incarcerated person. Both ofQcers allegedly failed to report the use
of force and failed to secure medical attention for the incarcerated person.

June 21, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned two different investigators to inquire into the allegations pursuant to
two separate inquiries. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted both inquiries. The investigators did not
ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include
all relevant facts in the inquiry reports. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring
authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an
investigation. On December 31, 2020, the hiring authority identiQed potential staff misconduct and referred
allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation based on information both
investigators gathered during both inquiries, but before the investigators submitted their inquiry reports. On
April 14, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central' Intake Unit approved an investigation. On May 3, 2021,
the hiring authority reviewed the Qrst investigator's inquiry report and determined that the hiring authority had
previously identiQed potential staff misconduct. However, the deadline to impose disciplinary action for the
June 21, 2019, allegations in both inquiries had already expired. Nevertheless, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
subsequently conducted a full investigation. On July 6, 2021, the hiring authority, after reviewing the evidence,
decided not to impose discipline against any of the ofQcers for any of the allegations.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry because the OfQce of Internal Affairs wasted
resources by assigning two different investigators to inquire into the allegations. The investigator assigned to
this inquiry did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques,
and did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
report to the hiring authority on April 30, 2021. However, the hiring authority had already determined on
December 31, 2020, that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the matter to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit based on information both investigators gathered during
both inquiries but before the investigators submitted their inquiry reports.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The incarcerated person who made the allegations told the investigator he witnessed other incidents involving
the incarcerated person he identiQed as the victim of alleged staff misconduct that were not part of the inquiry.
The investigator responded that she would discuss those incidents with the incarcerated person later in the
interview, but she did not do so. Also, the incarcerated person stated that he discussed the incident with the
victim of the alleged staff misconduct, but the investigator did not ask for any details about what the
incarcerated persons actually discussed.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator showed the incarcerated person who made the allegations a photograph of an ofQcer who
was a subject of the inquiry, but the investigator did not identify the photograph on the record, identify whom it
depicted, or have it marked.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs wasted resources by assigning two different investigators to
conduct inquiry work regarding the same allegations. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13,

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 213

2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete the Qnal inquiry report until April 30, 2021, three
months and 17 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired. However, the hiring authority
had already determined on December 31, 2020, that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and
submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit based on information
bothinvestigators gathered during bothinquiriesbut before theinvestigators submitted their inquiry reports.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report did not include a synopsis of the interview the investigator conducted with the
incarcerated person who was the victim of the alleged staff misconduct.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action. However, the hiring authority had already determined on December 30, 2020 that
there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action. However, the hiring authority had already determined on December 30, 2020 that
there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs
Central Intake Unit.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
August 17, 2020, seven months and four days thereafter. The investigator completed the Qnal interview on
September 29, 2020. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 30, 2021, three months and 17
days after the deadline had expired. However, the hiring authority had already determined on December 31,
2020, that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit based on information investigators gathered during twodifferent inquiries,but before
theinvestigators submitted their inquiry reports. Nevertheless, the Qrst investigator submitted her Qnal inquiry
report three months and 30 days after the hiring authority had already submitted a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

214 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034509-IQ

Incident Date

On July 1, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly placed handcuffs tightly behind an incarcerated person's back despite a
directive that the incarcerated person not be handcuffed from behind. A second ofQcer allegedly assisted the
Qrst ofQcer in placing the handcuffs behind the incarcerated person's back.

July 01, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not prepare for all aspects of the
interviews, did not provide an admonishment concerning at the beginning of an interview of the requirement to
be truthful during an ofQcial inquiry, and did not admonish a witness concerning conQdentiality at the end of
the interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring
authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit and yard area where the incident allegedly
occurred to use during interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit and yard area where the incident allegedly
occurred to use during interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was November 7, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on December 17, 2020, one month and 10 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was November 7, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on December 17, 2020, one month and 10 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On November 7, 2019, the department learned of a staff misconduct grievance Qled by the incarcerated
person. The prison did not conduct an inquiry but found no violation of departmental policy. On January 13,
2020, the incarcerated person Qled a declaration containing the same staff misconduct allegations. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days after receipt of the declaration. The deadline to take disciplinary action was November 7,
2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its report to the hiring authority until
December 17, 2020, one month and 10 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 215

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037706-IQ

Incident Date

Between July 1, 2019, and July 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly arranged the assault of an incarcerated person by
another incarcerated person and provided the other incarcerated person with extra food trays as payment for
the assault.

July 01, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Assault

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three
months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months and 26 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

216 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037912-IQ

Incident Date

On July 14, 2019, an ofQcer and a second ofQcer allegedly scattered the contents of an incarcerated person’s
cell during a cell search. The Qrst ofQcer allegedly grabbed one of the incarcerated person's arms and slammed
the incarcerated person to the koor, after which the incarcerated person lost consciousness for several seconds.

July 14, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

The Qrst ofQcer allegedly placed one of his knees on the incarcerated person’s throat and used a knee to strike
the incarcerated person in the face. A third ofQcer allegedly smashed the incarcerated person’s face onto a
concrete koor. The Qrst ofQcer, a fourth ofQcer, a sergeant, and a nurse allegedly made rude statements to the
incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 10
months and 19 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 10 months and 19 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 10 months and 19 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 10 months and 19 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on August 16, 2019. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 10 months and 19 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 217

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035986-IQ

Incident Date

On July 27, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly denied an incarcerated person a shower, threatened the incarcerated
person, and directed the incarcerated person to return to his cell. The following day, the ofQcer allegedly
threatened the incarcerated person again.

July 27, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Discourteous
Treatment
Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews and did not include all relevant
facts in the inquiry report. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring
authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The hiring authority did not use due
diligence in reviewing the case materials. Finally, the department did not timely provide the OIG with
requested case materials.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, an investigator who conducted an interview of a recently promoted sergeant on
September 2, 2020, did not use effective interviewing techniques. The investigator gave the witness positive
responses to his answers, such as, "And that's why you promoted to sergeant."

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator completed the Qnal interview on October 14, 2020, and the deadline for taking disciplinary
action was not until January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal report
until February 2, 2021, three months and 19 days after the Qnal interview, and 20 days after the deadline for
taking disciplinary action expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not include in the Qnal inquiry report relevant facts from two
incarcerated persons that conQrmed that a group of disabled incarcerated persons routinely did not receive
their scheduled showers because an ofQcer left the housing unit, locked it down, and the disabled incarcerated
persons were then "missed" for showers, not delayed, but denied showers. One incarcerated person noted in
an interview on October 14, 2020, that he never knew whether he would get a shower or not and that he could
never count on it. Also, the same witness told the investigator that the same ofQcer left the housing unit two to
three times a week, and disabled incarcerated persons did not receive their showers. A second incarcerated
person interviewed on October 14, 2020, told the investigator,“We’ve all been denied for shower,” that it’s
"just something that you live with,” and that being denied showers was "just par for the course here.”In
addition, the second incarcerated witness stated the ofQcer socialized with other ofQcers not assigned to the
housing unit both inside and outside of the unit. These facts should have been included in the inquiry report
because they support the general allegation that showers were routinely denied to disabled incarcerated
persons; this circumstantially corroborates that an ofQcer could have improperly denied the disabled
incarcerated person of a shower on a speciQc date, July 27, 2019, in this case.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

218 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted
the inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, 20 days thereafter.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline for the department to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and interview recordings
until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration containing allegations of
staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary
action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and
submit it to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Also, in the OIG's opinion, the hiring authority did not use due diligence. The hiring authority received Qve cases
related to the incarcerated person on the same day, February 2, 2021. The case materials consisted of
approximately nine hours of recorded interviews, 157 pages of exhibits, and 49 pages of inquiry reports. The
hiring authority admitted in one case that he did not review all of the interview recordings. In addition, the
hiring authority made decisions on the dispositions of all Qve cases on the same day he received the case
materials.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 26,
2021, but the department did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 219

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034671-IQ

Incident Date

On August 3, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly failed to assist an incarcerated person in medical distress and stated
that the incarcerated person was “crying like a [expletive]." He wants to start crying for help at six a.m.” The
ofQcer allegedly threatened a second incarcerated person who spoke out on the Qrst incarcerated person's

August 03, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

behalf. The ofQcer allegedly said, “Come on out of your cell so I can beat your [expletive]” and instructed the
second incarcerated person to meet him outside.

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct. However, the hiring authority referred the matter to the OfQce
of Internal Affairs the day after the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly
conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use
effective interviewing techniques, did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other
forensic evidence, did not include all relevant policies in the Qnal report, and completed and submitted the
inquiry report to the hiring authority eleven days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action. Despite the
poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On April 14, 2021, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit subsequently approved an investigation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an
investigation. On July 22, 2021, the hiring authority did not sustain allegations against the ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct the inquiry until Qve months and 20 days after the department learned of the staff misconduct
allegations and it allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire. Also, the investigator did not ask
all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not properly search
for and collect relevant documentary and other forensic evidence, did not include all relevant policies in the
Qnal inquiry report, did not provide an admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview,
and completed and submitted the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority 11 days prior to the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During a September 3, 2020, interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing
staff misconduct allegations, the investigator failed to ask logical questions to establish when a described
event occurred and how it Qt in the sequence of other events the incarcerated person described.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews.
The investigator failed to state for the record that the investigator showed documents to an incarcerated
person during an interview, disclosed excessive information about the inquiry to an ofQcer during an interview
without sufQciently confronting the ofQcer about the answers with contradictory information, disclosed to a
second ofQcer during an interview that there were no reports of the incident, disclosed to a third ofQcer during
an interview the source of the investigator's information, and disclosed to a sergeant during an interview
excessive information concerning the inquiry provided to the investigator by an incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other
forensic evidence. The investigator did not obtain relevant legal paperwork an incarcerated person stated he
Qled against the department concerning the incident.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

220 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal inquiry
report because the investigator did not include policies relevant to incarcerated persons who request medical
assistance.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 28, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs provided its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, leaving only 11 daysfor the hiring authority to
submit a request for additional inquiry before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On February 28, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration setting forth staff
misconduct allegations. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an
inquiry until August 17, 2020, Qve months and 20 days thereafter. Also, the deadline for the department to
take disciplinary action against the ofQcerwas February 28, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did
not provide the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and interview recordings until February 17,
2021, only 11 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action. In the OIG's opinion, this is not a sufQcient
amount of time for the hiring authority to review the case materials and then request additional inquiry, if
necessary, before the deadline for taking disciplinary action,nor is it a sufQcient amount of time for the hiring
authority to take disciplinary action.The hiring authority referred the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an
investigation after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 221

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037630-IQ

Incident Date

On August 5, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly failed to stop an attack on an incarcerated person by a second
incarcerated person. On the same day, after the second incarcerated person allegedly attacked the incarcerated
person again, a sergeant allegedly forced the attacked incarcerated person to sign a form indicating he agreed

August 05, 2019

Allegations
Neglect of Duty
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

to be placed on the same yard with the incarcerated person who attacked him.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. In addition, the investigator failed to provide an admonishment
regarding conQdentiality at the end of two separate witness interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on
September 24, 2019. The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 28, 2020. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, six months and Qve days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 28, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, six months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 28, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, six months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department did not handle the case with due diligence because it allowed the deadline to take disciplinary
action to expire before completion of the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on
September 24, 2019, when the incarcerated person Qled a staff misconduct grievance. The department
assigned a lieutenant from the prison to conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant conducted a cursory inquiry. On
October 7, 2019, after completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority found staff did not violate departmental
policy. Thereafter, on January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration describing staff
misconduct allegations concerning the same incident. The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 28,
2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021,
six months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

222 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034572-IQ

Incident Date

On August 6, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly pushed an incarcerated person's wheelchair into a hole and continued
pushing until the incarcerated person fell out of his wheelchair, injured his right knee, and hit his head on the
pavement. The ofQcer and another ofQcer allegedly picked up the incarcerated person and, when the

August 06, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force
Other

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person requested medical attention, they delayed securing medical attention for the incarcerated
person. After the incarcerated person requested the name of one of the ofQcers, the ofQcer allegedly refused to
provide it.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, and did not use effective
interviewing techniques. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired, and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques, did not provide an admonishment to witnesses concerning conQdentiality at the end of each
interview, and did not timely transmit items of evidentiary value to the OIG. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry because the investigator did not
collect and have available photographs or diagrams of the scene of the incident for the August 5, 2020,
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the staff misconduct allegations.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions. The investigator did not clarify for the record the manner in
which an ofQcer allegedly restrained an incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an interview on December 2, 2020, the investigator did not appropriately present exhibits to a witness
and did not make a clear record regarding the exhibits discussed during the interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview on August 5, 2020, the investigator did not appropriately present exhibits to the
incarcerated person who submitted the staff misconduct allegations, and did not clarify for the record if the
incarcerated person was handcuffed from the front or from the back before he fell. Also, in an interview on
August 18, 2020, the investigator did not make a clear record when using exhibits in an interview of an ofQcer.
Finally, at the close of interviews conducted on August 18 and 19, 2020, the investigator failed to admonish
two witnesses of the need to maintain the conQdentiality of the interviews.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 223

inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, Qve months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, Qve months and 16 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On August 17, 2019, the department receiveda staff misconduct grievance from an incarcerated person. The
department assigned a lieutenant to conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person
who submitted the grievance, another incarcerated person, and two ofQcers. On October 9, 2019, at the
conclusion of the inquiry, the hiring authority found that staff did not violate departmental policy. On January
13, 2020, the department received a declaration from the incarcerated person setting forth the same staff
misconduct allegations. On July 27, 2020,the OfQce of Internal Affairs assignedan investigator to conducta
secondinquiry,six months and 14 daysafter the department received the declaration. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was August 17, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide itsQnalinquiry
report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, Qve months and 16 days after the deadline for taking
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings of interviews from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on
January 26, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide all of the exhibits and interview recordings
until February 22, 2021, 27 days thereafter. The department did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the OIG
until February 3, 2021, one day after the hiring authority made his decision concerning the disposition of the
inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

224 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037932-IQ

Incident Date
August 31, 2019

Between August 31, 2019, and September 6, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threatened to physically harm an
incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 225

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034569-IQ

Incident Date
September 01,
2019

On September 1, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly called an incarcerated person a derogatory term and told the
incarcerated person that the incarcerated person was "the cause of a lot of stuff around here," grabbed the
incarcerated person's arm, threw him to the ground and, thereafter, denied medical treatment to the

Allegations

incarcerated person. A second ofQcer allegedly caused the incarcerated person to urinate on himself during a
urinalysis test by pulling a sample cup away from the incarcerated person as the incarcerated person urinated.

Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions and did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its
inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until 10 months and 25 days after the department learned of the staff
misconduct allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and did not
provide an admonishment to witnesses concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask relevant questions and routinely failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions in
several interviews. The investigator often accepted answers from ofQcers without asking the ofQcers to provide
additional clarifying details and without asking for the basis of the ofQcers' knowledge.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 2, 2020. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry and, on March 24, 2021, submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 2, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 24 2021, six months and 22 days thereafter.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on September 2, 2019, and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was September 2, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020. This left the investigator only one month
and six days to complete the inquiry before the deadline for taking disciplinary action on September 2, 2020.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 24, 2021, six
months and 22 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On September 2, 2019, the department learned of the allegations when the incarcerated person submitted a
staff misconduct grievance. On September 2, 2019, the department assigned a sergeant to conduct an inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

226 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person and two ofQcers, but the sergeant did not sufQciently
investigate the staff misconduct grievance by interviewing other incarcerated persons or staff. On December 6,
2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy.
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same
allegations of staff misconduct. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to
conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, six months and 14 days after receiving the declaration. This left
the investigator only one month and six days to complete the inquiry before the deadline for taking disciplinary
action on September 2, 2020. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 25, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, one
month and 27 days after the Qnal interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was September 2, 2020.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021,
six months and 22 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 227

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034669-IQ

Incident Date
September 01,
2019

Between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019, after an elderly incarcerated person requested toilet
paper and soap, an ofQcer allegedly refused to help the incarcerated person by stating, The ofQcer also
allegedly slammed the incarcerated person into a locker and punched him.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions and failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until seven months and 27 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques,
and failed to provide proper admonishments before and after interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the Qrst interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the investigator failed to ask
clarifying questions to determine where the alleged misconduct occurred and who was involved, and to resolve
discrepancies between the incarcerated person's declaration and his interview statements. During the second
interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the investigator showed the incarcerated
person documents and asked him questions about them. The incarcerated person answered some of the
questions by making gestures with his face and by shaking his head. However, the investigator did not ask the
incarcerated person to orally answer the questions, explain why he was shaking his head, or explain the
meaning of his non-verbal conduct.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During the Qrst interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the investigator failed to use
diagrams, photographs, or other documents to assist the incarcerated person in answering questions even
though the investigator was aware the incarcerated person had memory problems due to a medical condition.
During the second interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the investigator failed to
pre-mark photographic exhibits shown to the incarcerated person or use a photographic lineup.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

228 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021, two months and four days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until September 9, 2020,
seven months, and 27 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 17, 2021,
two months and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 229

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036000-IQ

Incident Date

Between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly punched an incarcerated person
while the incarcerated person stood in line to receive a meal.

September 01,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 21 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation, and the OfQce of
Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator used effective interviewing techniques by re-initiating the recording of an
interview after a witness began to provide additional relevant information after the interview concluded.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020 the department received the incarcerated person’s declaration setting forth the staff
misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an
inquiry into the allegation until August 3, 2020, six months and 21 days thereafter. Also, the deadline for the
department to take disciplinary actions against the ofQcer was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not provide the hiring authority with the Qnal inquiry report until February 17, 2021, one
month and four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQcer of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQcer of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

230 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037633-IQ

Incident Date

Between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly entered an incarcerated person's
cell, collected the incarcerated person's property and placed it in a heap in the cell, and left the cell in disarray.

September 01,
2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decisions.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two
months and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 231

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037927-IQ

Incident Date

On September 6, 2019, while at an outside hospital, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed a remote control device from
the hands of an incarcerated person, causing the remote to eject from the incarcerated person's hands and
strike the incarcerated person on the chin. The ofQcer then allegedly attempted to strangle the incarcerated

September 06,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

person.

Battery

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Poor

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three
months and two weeks after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and two weeks after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and two weeks after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and two weeks after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, three months and two weeks after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

232 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037929-IQ

Incident Date

Between September 11, 2019, and September 12, 2019, staff allegedly harassed and intimidated an
incarcerated person by scattering the contents of the incarcerated person's cell. Also, on September 16, 2019,
an ofQcer allegedly threatened to harm an incarcerated person if the incarcerated person returned to a

September 11,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

particular building at the prison.

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY
Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 4, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 10, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 233

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037914-IQ

Incident Date
September 13,
2019

On September 13, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly told a suicidal incarcerated person, "You are crying too much. You
need to shut up and do what everyone is doing in the dayroom." The ofQcer then allegedly claimed the
incarcerated person did something wrong so the ofQcer could search the incarcerated person's cell. The

Allegations

incarcerated person threatened to report the ofQcer, and the ofQcer then allegedly forced the incarcerated
person to the ground, causing extreme pain.

CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY
Misuse of Authority
Battery

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 5, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

234 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035299-IQ

Incident Date
September 29,
2019

On September 29, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person who was using a
walker and exiting the cell, causing the incarcerated person's right hand to be stuck between the door frame
and the handle of the walker and causing pain to the incarcerated person's hand.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use diagrams and
photographs during interviews, failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions during interviews, failed to ask

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

relevant questions during interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not
attach to the report an applicable policy as an exhibit. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and eight days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to use diagrams and photographs during interviews, failed to ask appropriate follow-up
questions during interviews, failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not complete all necessary
and relevant interviews, did not provide conQdentiality advisements at the conclusion of interviews, and did not
attach to the report an applicable policy as an exhibit. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, in interviews on July 25, 2020, the investigator failed to ask multiple relevant questions
during witness interviews of two ofQcers. The investigator also failed to ask appropriate follow-up questions to
the answers provided by both witnesses.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, in two interviews on July 25, 2020, the investigator failed to use diagrams and
photographs during interviews of two ofQcers.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview a counselor and a lieutenant to obtain additional facts regarding the alleged
misconduct. The counselor previously interviewed the ofQcer who was the subject of the investigation and the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint regarding a reasonable accommodation request to allow
incarcerated persons more time to enter and exit their cells. The counselor should have been interviewed to
provide information concerning the information previously provided by the ofQcer and incarcerated person
concerning the issue. The lieutenant had also previously interviewed the incarcerated person who submitted
the complaint concerning related issues and should have been interviewed to obtain information concerning
previous statements made by the incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to present and authenticate photographs and diagrams of a housing unit during

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 235

interviews of two ofQcers to determine whether the photographs and diagrams accurately depicted the viewing
angle of a control booth ofQcer towards a particular cell door. The investigator also failed to follow up and ask
the two ofQcers if they were familiar with the incarcerated person and his speciQc disability, and whether they
had previously witnessed the incarcerated person have difQculties entering and exiting his cell.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include in the Qnal report the policies and procedures for incarcerated persons with
disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six
months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one
month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

236 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035300-IQ

Incident Date
September 30,
2019

On September 30, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly told an incarcerated person, "Heard you were going to sue my
cousin." The incarcerated person had Qled a complaint against another ofQcer. After the ofQcer allegedly made
the comment, the incarcerated person withdrew his complaint.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews and did not complete a necessary and relevant interview. Due to the poor quality

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and eight days after it learned of a staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and did not complete a necessary and relevant
interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring
authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask the cellmate of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint if the
cellmate heard the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry make a discourteous statement to the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview a lieutenant who submitted a memorandum regarding the lieutenant's
interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint and allegedly obtained exculpatory
information from the incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during the interview of an incarcerated person on August 3,
2020, and did not ask the incarcerated person if he heard the discourteous statement an ofQcer allegedly made
to the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. Also, the investigator did not interview a lieutenant
who submitted a memorandum regarding his interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the
complaint and who allegedly obtained exculpatory information from the incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 237

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department received a declaration from an incarcerated person regarding the staff misconduct allegation.
However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21,
2020, six months and eight days after receipt of the declaration. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action
was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

238 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034670-IQ

Incident Date

Between October 1, 2019, and January 7, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly deployed pepper spray on incarcerated
persons after the incarcerated persons reported being suicidal and then the ofQcer allegedly left the
incarcerated persons in their cells while they yelled for assistance.

October 01, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant interviews, did not address all
appropriate allegations, and lied to a witness. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry
work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct the inquiry until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also,
the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not complete necessary and relevant
interviews, did not address all appropriate allegations, and lied to a witness. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the incarcerated person reported
several allegations of staff misconduct other than the subject matter of the inquiry. However, the investigator
did not ask sufQciently detailed follow-up questions of the incarcerated person to determine the extent of his
knowledge about those allegations, even though some of them pertained to allegations the department was
investigating in other inquiries.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have interviewed an incarcerated person who was identiQed as a
victim of alleged staff misconduct, and should have interviewed an ofQcer who was a subject of the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry because, during
an interview of an incarcerated person who asked for the identity of the incarcerated person who alleged staff
misconduct, rather than answer truthfully or refuse to answer at all, the investigator lied and provided the
incarcerated person with a false name.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator indicated in the Qnal inquiry report that, during an interview of the incarcerated person who
made the allegations, the incarcerated person identiQed an additional ofQcer as "one of the ofQcers who used
force when inmates ask for help." Therefore, the department added the additional ofQcer as a subject of the
inquiry, and the investigator added an allegation to the Qnal inquiry report to that effect. However, the
incarcerated person stated that the ofQcer "shot people with the block gun in the head" and laughed with the
ofQcers who deployed pepper spray on incarcerated persons. The report did not include the contextual
information or appropriately clarify the allegation that formed the basis of adding the ofQcer as a subject.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 239

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April
19, 2021, three months and six days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

240 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035218-IQ

Incident Date
October 01, 2019

On October 1, 2019, two ofQcers allegedly entered a cell and assaulted an incarcerated person. A third ofQcer,
who opened the cell door, allegedly lied about the incident in a report.

Allegations

Disposition

Assault
Dishonesty

The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing techniques, and unnecessarily disclosed

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

information to a witness. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s
decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On May
5, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit subsequently approved an investigation. However,
because the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not conduct an
investigation. On July 27, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings as to whether misconduct occurred and
did not impose corrective action or discipline against the ofQcers.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator
to conduct an inquiry until eight months and 28 days after the department learned of the staff misconduct
allegation. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews and did not provide an
admonishment to witnesses concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During an interview of an incarcerated person on August 13, 2020, the investigator failed to ask the
incarcerated person to describe other incarcerated persons and staff who witnessed or were involved in the
incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an interview of an incarcerated person on January 21, 2021, the investigators conducting the interview
spoke rapidly and spoke simultaneously which, in the OIG's opinion, caused the incarcerated person to become
confused by their questions, which were not adequately clariQed.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs concluded its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 29, 2019. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
assigned an investigator to conduct a second inquiry and, on March 24, 2021, submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority. Also, in the OIG’s opinion, the investigator should not have disclosed to an incarcerated
person during a January 14, 2021, interview that the incarcerated person provided information that was
inconsistent with other information provided to the investigator and should not have disclosed to the
incarcerated person that a particular witness would be interviewed in the future.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was October 29, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, four months and 24 days after the deadline
for taking disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 241

The department received an incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on October 29, 2019, and so the
deadline to take disciplinary action was October 29, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began the
department's second inquiry into the allegations on July 27, 2020. This left the investigator only three months
month and two days to complete the inquiry before the deadline for taking disciplinary action on October 29,
2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 24, 2021,
four months and 24 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On October 29, 2019, the department learned of the allegations when the incarcerated person, who was the
victim of the alleged misconduct, submitted a staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a
lieutenant to conduct an inquiry. The lieutenant interviewed two incarcerated persons. On December 5, 2019,
at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On
January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same
allegations of staff misconduct. On July 27, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to
conduct a second inquiry into the allegations, six months and 14 days after receiving the declaration. This left
the investigator only three months month and two days to complete the inquiry before the deadline for taking
disciplinary action on October 29, 2020. The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on January 21, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24,
2021, two months and three days after the Qnal interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was
October 29, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until March 24, 2021, four months and 24 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.The OfQce of
Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

242 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035227-IQ

Incident Date

Between October 1, 2019, and January 7, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly deployed pepper spray on incarcerated
persons after the incarcerated persons reported being suicidal. The ofQcer allegedly then left the incarcerated
persons in their cells while they yelled for assistance.

October 01, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not complete necessary and
relevant interviews, and lied to a witness. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work,
the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
the inquiry until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques,
did not complete necessary and relevant interviews, and lied to a witness. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations, the incarcerated person reported
several allegations of staff misconduct other than the subject matter of the inquiry. However, the investigator
did not ask sufQciently detailed follow-up questions of the incarcerated person to determine the extent of his
knowledge about those allegations, even though some of them pertained to allegations the department was
investigating in other inquiries.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews
because, while off-the-record, the investigator informed a witness's representative that other witnesses were
interviewed without representation and that the interviewer intended to advise other witnesses to bring a
representative to their interviews.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have interviewed an incarcerated person who was identiQed as a
victim of alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview of an incarcerated person who asked for the identity of the incarcerated person who
alleged misconduct, rather than answer truthfully or refuse to answer at all, the investigator lied and provided
the incarcerated person a false name. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 243

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
the inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, three months and six days thereafter.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021,
three months and six days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

244 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037631-IQ

Incident Date
October 01, 2019

Between October 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated
person, causing an injury to one of the incarcerated person's shoulders.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decisions.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The investigator interviewed a witness in Spanish and did not
translate for the record the questions and answers from Spanish to English, nor did he secure a translator for
the interview. The investigator did not attach a transcript of the interview to the Qnal inquiry report with a
translation from Spanish to English so that reviewers of the report, including the hiring authority, could
independently review and evaluate the interview. In addition, the investigator failed to provide an
admonishment regarding conQdentiality at the end of two separate witness interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
On March 16, 2021 the investigator interviewed a witness whose primary language is Spanish. The
investigator interviewed the witness in Spanish and did not translate for the record the questions and answers
from Spanish to English.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on
January 13, 2020. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Also, on March 16, 2021 the investigator interviewed
a witness whose primary language was Spanish. The investigator, who was kuent in Spanish, interviewed the
witness in Spanish and did not translate for the record the questions and answers from Spanish to English. The
investigator did not use the services of a certiQed translator to translate the interview on the record. The
investigator subsequently produced a Qnal inquiry report that did not include as an exhibit a translation of the
interview or a transcript of the interview. Reviewers of the report who are not Spanish-speaking were
dependent on the investigator's own summary and translation of the interview and were unable to
independently verify the contents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
On March 16, 2021, the investigator interviewed a witness in Spanish and did not translate for the record the
questions and answers from Spanish to English, nor did he secure a translator for the interview. The
investigator did not attach a transcript of the interview to the Qnal inquiry report with a translation from
Spanish to English so that reviewers of the report, including the hiring authority, could independently review
and evaluate the interview.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 245

The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was February 16, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal
inquiry to the hiring authority until May 3, 2021, two months and 17 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

246 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035989-IQ

Incident Date

On October 2, 2019, after an incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct grievance alleging that ofQcers
pushed the incarcerated person out of a wheelchair, a lieutenant, a sergeant, and an ofQcer allegedly
interviewed the incarcerated person concerning the incident, and the ofQcer participated in the interview even

October 02, 2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Threat/Intimidation

though the ofQcer allegedly was one of the ofQcers who was a subject of the incarcerated person's staff
misconduct grievance. After the interview, the ofQcer allegedly threatened the incarcerated person.

Overall Rating

Disposition

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not conduct all relevant
witness interviews, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not employ effective interviewing
techniques, and produced an inquiry report that omitted pertinent information from off-the-record discussions
with a witness. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired, and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after discovering the alleged staff misconduct. The
investigator did not conduct all relevant witness interviews, did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews, did not employ effective interviewing techniques, and produced an inquiry report that omitted
pertinent information. The investigator engaged in off-the-record discussions and closed-door conversations
with a witness after an interview concluded. The investigator did not include in the inquiry report the off-therecord statements, some of which clariQed the statements the witness provided on-the-record. Also, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Finally, the department did not timely provide requested items
of evidentiary value to the OIG.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG’s opinion, in an August 20, 2020, interview of a lieutenant, the investigator did not ask all relevant
questions of the lieutenant and did not refresh the lieutenant's recollection when the investigator should have
done so. In interviews on August 19, 2020, and December 2, 2020, of another ofQcer who was present during
the underlying incident concerning the wheelchair, the investigator never asked the other ofQcer whether he
was present for the incarcerated person's interview on October 2, 2019, or whether he made threats to the
incarcerated person after the interview, even though employment records show that other ofQcer worked on
October 2, 2019.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. The investigator did not
attempt to refresh the recollection of the lieutenant who claimed not to remember the incident, nor remember
the involved staff or the incarcerated person. The investigator should have shown the lieutenant photographs
of the incarcerated person and staff members in an attempt to refresh the lieutenant's recollection. In addition,
during the interview, the lieutenant said that he did not recall whether any other staff members were present
for the interview of the incarcerated person. During a break in the interview, the lieutenant told the
investigator, in an off-the-record conversation, that he did, in fact, remember that transportation ofQcers
escorted the incarcerated person away from a program ofQce after the interview, but that they were not

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 247

present during the interview with the incarcerated person. Despite receiving this additional clarifying
information, the investigator did not go back on-the-record to document the new information proffered by the
lieutenant.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator should have determined the identities of the involved transportation ofQcers, the sergeant
working in the program ofQce, and any other ofQcers working in the program ofQce on the date of the event in
question, and then the investigator should have conducted interviews to determine whether they remembered
being present for the lieutenant’s interview of the incarcerated person, or whether they observed anyone
threaten the incarcerated person after the interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG’s opinion, in an August 20, 2020, interview of the lieutenant, the investigator did not ask all relevant
questions of the lieutenant and did not refresh the lieutenant's recollection when the investigator should have
done so. Also, the investigator did not conduct all relevant interviews, and did not include all relevant
interviews in the inquiry report.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
On December 10, 2020, the investigator conducted a follow-up interview of the incarcerated person during
which he alleged that two ofQcers, not one, engaged in the initial alleged misconduct concerning the
wheelchair. In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have included this interview in the inquiry report.
Since two ofQcers are alleged to be involved in the initial alleged misconduct, then the ofQcer present during
the lieutenant's interview on October 2, 2019, and who threatened the incarcerated person after the interview,
could be either one of the two ofQcers. However, the investigator determined one of the ofQcers did not work
on October 2, 2019, and then closed the inquiry. The same employment records show the second ofQcer
worked on October 2, 2019. The investigator should have interviewed the second ofQcer, who was a potential
subject, before ending the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator did not document off-the-record statements made by a witness, a lieutenant, that differed
from his recorded statements. In the OIG's opinion, the inconsistent, off-the-record statements should also
have been included and noted in the inquiry report.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline take disciplinary action
expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline take disciplinary action
expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing staff misconduct allegations,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not an assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline for taking disciplinary action was January
13, 2021. The investigator conducted his Qnal interview on August 20, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, Qve months and 13 days after
the Qnal interview, and 20 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

248 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings on January 26, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 249

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034668-IQ

Incident Date

On October 4, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed an incarcerated person by one of his arms and slammed him
to the ground. A second ofQcer allegedly observed the incident but failed to report it. Thereafter, a sergeant
allegedly threatened the incarcerated person as he sat in a holding cell when he told the incarcerated person,

October 04, 2019

Allegations
Use of Force
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

"I'm going to see how loyal my staff is."

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask relevant
questions during interviews, failed to ask follow-up questions, failed to use effective interviewing techniques,
and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed
that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and nine days days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also,
the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to ask follow-up questions, failed to
use effective interviewing techniques, and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. In addition,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions and appropriate follow-up questions
during an interview on September 10, 2020, of the incarcerated person who made the allegation, and during
an interview on January 21, 2021, of an ofQcer who was a subject of the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews.
During an interview of an ofQcer, the ofQcer's representative objected to a question as being outside the scope
of the interview, even though it was directly related to the subject matter of the inquiry and to the ofQcer's
previous statement during the interview. The investigator noted the objection, but needlessly asked a different
question rather than pursue an answer to the properly-asked question. Also, during an interview of a sergeant
who was a subject of the inquiry, the investigator failed to note for the record that the sergeant was reading
directly from a memorandum rather than drawing upon the sergeant's independent recollection.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
To provide a more thorough presentation of the facts regarding the alleged misconduct, the investigator should
have interviewed an additional ofQcer, who authored a report and may have been a percipient witness to the
incident.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 18, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month and Qve days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

250 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was February 18, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month and Qve days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On February 18, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, Qve
months and nine days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was February 18, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one
month and Qve days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 251

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035296-IQ

Incident Date

On October 11, 2019, an ofQcer moved an incarcerated person into another incarcerated person's cell and
allegedly directed them to either engage in sexual intercourse or to Qght. There was only one mattress in the
cell. The ofQcer allegedly failed to provide the incarcerated person a mattress upon which to sleep when the

October 11, 2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Retaliation
Threat/Intimidation
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person moved into the new cell.

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs on
March 25, 2021. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst allegation had expired. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not complete all necessary and
relevant interviews, did not search for and collect relevant evidence, and failed to identify a second allegation
that was alleged by the incarcerated person during his interview. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the
OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the investigated allegation to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On April 21, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake
Unit approved an investigation. However, on June 30, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs decided not to
proceed with the investigation because it realized that the deadline for taking disciplinary for the investigated
allegation had expired. On July 15, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings as to whether misconduct
occurred and did not impose corrective action or discipline against the ofQcer. However, neither the OfQce of
Internal Affairs nor the hiring authority took any action regarding the second allegation that the investigator
should have identiQed, even though the deadline to take disciplinary action had not yet expired.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct an inquiry until nine months and 13 days after the department learned of the Qrst staff
misconduct allegation for this inquiry. Also, the investigator failed to adequately prepare for all aspects of the
inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant
interviews, did not search for and collect relevant evidence, and failed to identify a second allegation that was
alleged by the incarcerated person during his interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst
allegation had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a complete copy of the staff misconduct grievance for the Qrst allegation, which
the prison had processed prior to the start of the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
When conducting interviews of incarcerated persons, the investigator failed to ask the incarcerated persons if
they knew of any other incarcerated person or persons who had also been subjected to the same discourteous
behavior and failed to ask if they had seen an incarcerated person sleep without a mattress.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview ofQcers and incarcerated persons regarding the allegation that an ofQcer
denied an incarcerated person a mattress upon which to sleep.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator did not search for and collect a complete copy of the staff misconduct grievance for the Qrst
allegation, which the prison had processed prior to the start of the inquiry.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

252 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to investigate the allegation that an ofQcer denied an incarcerated person a mattress
upon which to sleep after the ofQcer moved the incarcerated person to a new cell.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator did not include in his Qnal inquiry report a complete copy of the staff misconduct grievance for
the Qrst allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator failed to conduct an inquiry into the allegation that an ofQcer denied an incarcerated person a
mattress upon which to sleep after the ofQcer moved the incarcerated person to a new cell.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not obtain a complete copy of the staff misconduct grievance for the Qrst allegation and
attach it as exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst allegation was October 17, 2020. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, Qve months
and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst allegation. The deadline to take
disciplinary action for the second allegation was August 27, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority before the deadline to take disciplinary action on the second allegation.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst allegation was October 17, 2020. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, Qve months
and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action for the Qrst allegation. The deadline to take
disciplinary action for the second allegation was August 27, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority before the deadline to take disciplinary action on the second allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On October 17, 2019,the department received a staff misconduct grievance from the incarcerated person
concerning the allegation that an ofQcer moved the incarcerated person to a new cell and made an
inappropriate statement to the incarcerated person and the new cellmate. The department assigned a
lieutenant to conduct an inquiry into the allegation. The lieutenant conducted a cursory inquiry into the
allegation. On November 26, 2019, after completion of the inquiry, the hiring authorityfound staff did not
violate departmental policy.Thereafter, on January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration
describing the same staff misconduct allegation. On July 30, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an
investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the Qrst allegation, nine months and 13 days after the department
learned of the allegation and six months and 17 days after receiving the declaration. On August 27, 2020,
during an interview of the cellmate, the department learned of the additional allegation that the ofQcer did not
provide the incarcerated person a mattress upon which to sleep. The deadline to take disciplinary action for the
Qrst allegation was October 17, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, Qve months and six days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
for the Qrst allegation.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 253

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035295-IQ

Incident Date

On October 21, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly failed to respond to an incarcerated person's requests for assistance,
after which the incarcerated person died. On October 22, 2019, the ofQcer allegedly made derogatory and
unprofessional comments and gestures by stating to a group of incarcerated persons that the ofQcer sees

October 21, 2019

Allegations
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Discourteous
Treatment
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

"dead people" and imitated walking in the manner of a zombie.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately
prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting the
interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not search for and collect relevant
evidence, and did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of
Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG
agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 16 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting the interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did
not search for and collect relevant evidence. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority two months and 10 days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where this incident allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, did not obtain a photograph of the
incarcerated person who died and of the ofQcer who was the subject of this inquiry as an aid to help witnesses
recall facts and parties involved, did not obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet so as not to have
interviewed a staff member who did not work the day of the incident and, therefore, was not relevant to the
inquiry, and did not obtain a copy of the coroner's report which showed that the incarcerated person died of
natural causes so that he did not incorrectly state to witnesses that the incarcerated person committed suicide.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator spoke over and interrupted the witnesses when they were answering questions and did not
allow witnesses to fully convey the information and the investigator's actions made the interview recordings
difQcult to understand. In addition, the investigator should not have told a witness that the incarcerated
person's death was due to suicide because the information was incorrect and because the witness then
provided information that supported the conclusion that a suicide occurred.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview a medical expert to determine whether it was possible for the incarcerated
person to yell for assistance if he was suffering from seizure at the time of his death.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

254 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where this incident allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, did not obtain a photograph of the
incarcerated person who died and of the ofQcer who was the subject of this investigation as an aid to help
witnesses recall facts and parties involved, did not obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet so as not to
have interviewed a staff member who did not work the day of the incident and, therefore, was not relevant to
the investigation, and did not obtain a copy of the coroner's report, which showed that the incarcerated person
died of natural causes so that he did not incorrectly state to witnesses that the incarcerated person committed
suicide.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where this incident allegedly occurred to use
during witness interviews as an aid to help witnesses recall facts, did not obtain a photograph of the
incarcerated person who died and of the ofQcer who was the subject of this investigation as an aid to help
witnesses recall facts and parties involved, did not obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet so as not to
have interviewed a staff member who did not work the day of the incident and, therefore, was not relevant to
the investigation, and did not obtain a copy of the coroner's report which showed that the incarcerated person
died of natural causes so that he did not incorrectly state to witnesses that the incarcerated person committed
suicide. The investigator did not interview a medical expert to determine whether it was possible for the
incarcerated person to yell for assistance if he was suffering from a seizure at the time of his death. The
investigator should not have spoken over and interrupted the witnesses when they were answering questions,
as it made the interview recordings difQcult to understand. In addition, the investigator should not have told a
witness that the incarcerated person's death was due to suicide because the information was incorrect and
because the witness then provided information that supported the conclusion that a suicide occurred.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
Although the cause and manner of death were relevant to the inquiry, the investigator did not include a copy of
the coroner's report for the hiring authority to consider during his review of the case.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, two months and 10 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, two months and 10 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 30, 2020, six
months and 16 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, two
months and 10 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 255

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037915-IQ

Incident Date

On October 21, 2019, after an incarcerated person told two ofQcers escorting him to a cell that he was feeling
suicidal, one of the ofQcers allegedly said, "Go ahead and cut yourself," and the second ofQcer allegedly said,
"We will give you a razor." Two weeks later, a sergeant allegedly conQrmed with the incarcerated person that

October 21, 2019

Allegations
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

the Qrst ofQcer told him to cut his wrists, but then the sergeant allegedly asked the incarcerated person to sign
a form stating that he did not have a problem with that particular ofQcer.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four
months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 5, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 16, 2021, four months and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

256 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037707-IQ

Incident Date

Between November 1, 2019, and November 20, 2019 an ofQcer allegedly arranged the assault of an
incarcerated person by another incarcerated person and provided extra food trays to the other incarcerated
person as payment for the assault. On December 1, 2019, the ofQcer allegedly allowed the incarcerated person

November 01,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

to smoke tobacco in his cell and instructed the incarcerated person to eliminate the odor of smoke.

Assault
CONDUCT OR
INEFFICIENCY

Disposition

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before the completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was February, 16, 2021.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 26, 2021,
Qve months and 10 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 26, 2021, Qve months and 10 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 26, 2021, Qve months and 10 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until July 26, 2021, Qve months and 10 days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on January 13, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action wasFebruary, 16, 2021.The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until July 26, 2021, Qve months and 10 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 257

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034672-IQ

Incident Date
November 19,
2019

On November 19, 2019, a lieutenant and two ofQcers allegedly threw an incarcerated person on the ground,
jumped on the incarcerated person, and then placed their knees on the incarcerated person's body while
pulling on the incarcerated person's arms.

Allegations

Disposition

Assault

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to use effective
interviewing techniques, conducted interviews in a setting that was insufQciently conQdential or private, and

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

did not include all appropriate exhibits in the Qnal report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed
that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until seven months and four days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to use effective interviewing techniques, conducted interviews in a setting that was not
conQdential, and did not include all appropriate exhibits in the Qnal report. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, theinvestigatordid not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews
on October 13, 2020. The investigator failed to adequately coordinate with a lieutenant who was facilitating
the interview of an incarcerated person on behalf of the investigator, who was conducting the interview via
telephone. It was apparent that the lieutenant was unsure of what his role regarding the interview would be,
which caused a delay preparing the exhibits. The investigator failed to provide pre-marked exhibits to the
lieutenant, which resulted in an unclear record since the incarcerated person made reference to unidentiQed
exhibits as he spoke. Also, another investigator asked a misleading and argumentative question of a sergeant
during an interview on January 5, 2021.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
On February 10, 2021, the investigator conducted interviews of incarcerated persons in and near a busy chapel
close to where other incarcerated persons congregated. During one interview, an incarcerated person who was
not being interviewed asked the investigator questions about the chaplain while an incarcerated person waited
to be interviewed. Thereafter, the incarcerated person expressed concern and indicated he was not inclined to
cooperate. Two additional incarcerated persons were interviewed that day but other persons walked in or by
the interview site during the interviews, thereby compromising the conQdentiality and privacy of the interviews.
Also, the investigator caused an incarcerated person to be summoned to the interview site over the public
address system. The incarcerated person refused to participate in the interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
During an interview of an incarcerated person, the incarcerated person drew a diagram of the dining hall where
the incident occurred. However, the Qnal inquiry report did not include the diagram as an exhibit.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

258 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 14, 2021, four months and one day after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 14, 2021, four months and one day after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 17, 2020,
seven months and four days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021 but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 14, 2021,
four months and one day after the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 259

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035232-IQ

Incident Date

On November 21, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threatened and insulted an incarcerated person in an attempt to
provoke a Qght.

November 21,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its inquiry after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator
to conduct this inquiry until eight months and 14 days after the department learned of the staff misconduct
allegation. Also, the investigator failed to adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry. Before
interviewing an ofQcer, the investigator failed to obtain a document containing the ofQcer's previous statement
pertaining to the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned a lieutenant who conducted a second inquiry after another lieutenant
had already adequately investigated the allegations in a prior inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs concluded
its inquiry after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. The deadline to take disciplinary action
was December 3, 2020. On February 17, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the
hiring authority, two months and 14 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 3, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs provided its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, two months and 14 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The department received the incarcerated person‘s staff misconduct grievance on February 28, 2020 , and the
deadline to take disciplinary action was December 3, 2020. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, two months and 14 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On December 3, 2019, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the
incarcerated person when he submitted a staff misconduct grievance. The department assigned a lieutenant to
conduct an inquiry who sufQciently investigated the complaint by interviewing the incarcerated person, other
incarcerated persons, and staff members. On December 11, 2019, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring
authority determined staff did not violate departmental policy. On February 28, 2020, the incarcerated person
subsequently submitted a declaration setting forth the same allegation of staff misconduct to the department.
Even though a sufQcient inquiry had been previously conducted, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an
investigator to conduct a second inquiry into the allegations on August 17, 2020, Qve months, and 20 days
after receiving the declaration, and eight months and 14 days after the department learned of the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

260 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

allegation.The OfQce of Internal Affairs expended time and resources by having an investigator conduct a
second inquiry and, upon its completion, submit a Qnal inquiry report on February 17, 2021, two months, and
14 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired on December 3, 2020.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 261

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035290-IQ

Incident Date

Between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, an incarcerated person allegedly overheard an ofQcer
encourage other incarcerated persons to "take care of" and assault another incarcerated person.

December 01,
2019

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete thorough
interviews, failed to ask relevant questions, and did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until two months and 19 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority only one month and 26 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, in an interview on October 13, 2020, even though the investigator knew an incarcerated
person had low comprehension scores, the investigator did not follow up and ask questions regarding the
incarcerated person's ability to comprehend the investigator's questions or whether he had any learning
disabilities that may have prevented or limited him from cooperating with the interview.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation
with an incarcerated person during which the investigator told the incarcerated person that he would look into
whether there is another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person was previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he was placed into administrative segregation after the
interview and could provide proof of such. However, the investigator did not follow up and request the
documentation. The incarcerated person further stated that he was open to talking to investigators. Prior to the
interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with two
other incarcerated persons during which he asked them if they knew the incarcerated person who initiated the
staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the investigator
engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told him that the
interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and described that
incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-the-record, the
investigator further engaged in a conversation with an incarcerated person during which he explained the
investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another
incarcerated person who share the last name. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and also off-therecord, the investigator engaged in another conversation with another incarcerated person during which the
investigator asked him whether he knew the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation
and whether he recalled the incident in question.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in a conversation with an incarcerated
person during which the investigator revealed that the incarcerated person might be involved in another active,
related investigation, and failed to request relevant documentation in possession of the incarcerated person

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

262 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

that may have been relevant to show he was previously interviewed in the other investigation. Prior to the
interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with two
other incarcerated persons during which he asked them if they knew the incarcerated person who initiated the
staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the investigator
engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told him that the
interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and described that
incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-the-record, the
investigator further engaged in a conversation duirng which he explained the investigative process and
discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another incarcerated person who
share the last name. Prior to another interview on October 13, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator
engaged in another conversation with another incarcerated person during which the investigator asked him if
he knew the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and whether he recalled the
incident in question.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On May 19, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 26 days prior to the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On May 19, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7, 2020, two
months and 19 days thereafter. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month
and 26 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 263

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035302-IQ

Incident Date
December 03,
2019

On December 3, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person as the incarcerated
person exited a cell and caused the door to close against the incarcerated person's chest, trapping him against
the cell door and injuring one of his ribs.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not secure a relevant
photograph and use it during interviews, and did not attach an applicable policy as an exhibit to the Qnal

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for
an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 19 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator did not ask relevant questions during interviews, did not secure a relevant photograph and use it
during interviews, and did not attach an applicable policy as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report. In addition,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not secure a photograph of the view of the control booth ofQcer would have had of the
incarcerated person's cell and present it to ofQcers during their interviews. Therefore, the investigator did not
sufQciently question the ofQcers concerning this issue.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
One of the signiQcant issues in this case was the control booth ofQcer's viewing angle of the cell door of the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. The investigator interviewed three ofQcers on August 18,
2020, and on August 27, 2020. However, the investigator did not secure a photograph of the view the control
booth ofQcer would have had of the incarcerated person's cell, and present it to the ofQcers during their
interviews to effectively discuss the view the control booth ofQcer would have had of the cell in question.
Therefore, the investigator did not sufQciently question the ofQcers concerning this issue.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
One of the signiQcant issues in this case was the viewing angle of the control booth ofQcer toward the cell door
of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint. The investigator interviewed three ofQcers on August
18, 2020, and on August 27, 2020. However, the investigator did not secure a photograph of the view the
control booth ofQcer would have had of the incarcerated person's cell, and present it to the ofQcers during their
interviews to effectively discuss the view the control booth ofQcer would have had of the cell in question. The
investigator should have presented such a photograph to the ofQcers and asked them whether the photograph
accurately depicted the control booth ofQcer's viewing angle of the incarcerated person's cell door to properly
authenticate the photograph.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

264 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On January 13, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 1, 2020, six
months and 19 days thereafter. Also, the investigator conducted his Qnal interview on August 27, 2020, and
the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 265

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035224-IQ

Incident Date
December 04,
2019

On December 4, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly left an incarcerated person in a cell overnight in kexible handcuffs
and refused to remove the handcuffs, saying, "You know how to take them off." A second ofQcer allegedly saw
the handcuffs on the incarcerated person but did not remove them.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment
Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority had previously submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation
concerning the allegation against the Qrst ofQcer, but not the second ofQcer, and the OfQce of Internal Affairs
had previously approved an investigation of the Qrst ofQcer. Therefore, as to the Qrst ofQcer, there was no need

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

for the hiring authority to refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation again. The hiring
authority identiQed staff misconduct against the second ofQcer and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to ask
relevant questions during an interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegations. Despite the poor
quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On September 10, 2020, the hiring authority sustained
the allegation against the Qrst ofQcer and served him with a letter of instruction. On April 14, 2021, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit subsequently approved an investigation of the second ofQcer. However,
because the deadline to take disciplinary action against the second ofQcer had expired, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not conduct an investigation. On August 4, 2021, the hiring authority made no Qndings regarding
whether misconduct occurred and did not impose corrective action or discipline against the second ofQcer.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and nine days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation against
the second ofQcer. Also, the investigator failed to ask relevant questions during an interview of the incarcerated
person who made the allegations. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs allowed the deadline to take
disciplinary action against the second ofQcer to expire prior to completion of the inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of the incarcerated person who made the allegation, the incarcerated person described a
lieutenant who allegedly acknowledged wrongdoing on behalf of the department by saying, "Unfortunately,
we [expletive] up. You got us on this." However, the investigator failed to ask follow-up questions to ascertain
the identity of the lieutenant or to learn additional details and circumstances surrounding the statement.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action against the second ofQcer was February 18, 2021. However, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month
and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action against the second ofQcer was February 18, 2021. However, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month
and Qve days after the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

266 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On February 18, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person against the second
ofQcer. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
July 27, 2020, Qve months and nine days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action against the
second ofQcer was February 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month and Qve days after the deadline for taking disciplinary
action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 267

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035987-IQ

Incident Date

On December 5, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly denied an incarcerated person access to a library designated for
incarcerated persons and also yelled and cursed at the incarcerated person.

December 05,
2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Other

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG did not agree with the hiring authority's decision that there was not a reasonable belief of
misconduct but agreed with the hiring authority's decision not to submit a request for investigation to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs since the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation, and the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline for
taking disciplinary action had expired. The department did not timely provide the OIG with requested case
materials.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration containing allegations of
staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The investigator completed the Qnal interview on
October 14, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report until February 2,
2021, three months and 19 days thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary action was
January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the
hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020, the department received the incarcerated person's declaration containing allegations of
staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry
until July 27, 2020, six months and 14 days thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary
action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and
submit it to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
Also, in the OIG's opinion, the hiring authority did not use due diligence. The hiring authority received Qve cases
related to the incarcerated person on the same day, February 2, 2021. The cases consisted of approximately
nine hours of recorded interviews, 157 pages of exhibits, and 49 pages of inquiry reports. The hiring authority
admitted in one case that he did not review all of the interview recordings. In addition, the hiring authority
made decisions on the dispositions of all Qve cases on the same day he received the case materials.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

268 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested the exhibits and interview recordings on January 26, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not provide the items until February 3, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 269

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036002-IQ

Incident Date
December 06,
2019

On December 6, 2019, after an ofQcer had to stay after his shift to write an incident report regarding a Qght
involving two incarcerated persons, the ofQcer allegedly entered the cell of one of the incarcerated persons
involved in the Qght, threw the incarcerated person's belongings on the koor, and stomped on the items.

Allegations

Disposition

Discrimination/Hara
ssment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant and
logical follow-up questions during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.
However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until six months and 21 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. When conducting
the inquiry, the investigator did not ask all relevant and logical follow-up questions during interviews. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during interviews. For example, during a December 1, 2020,
interview of the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry, the investigator failed to ask logical follow-up
questions. The ofQcer stated he “avoids overtime” and is “eight at the gate.” The investigator did not ask the
ofQcer to clarify the meaning of the phrase eight at the gate, nor ask whether or not it would have angered or
upset the ofQcer to have to work overtime. During a witness interview on November 4, 2020, the witness
stated he knows“[an incarcerated person] is in the report," but the investigator did not ask the witness to which
report the witness was referring.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to include statements an ofQcer made during his interview that
are relevant to the allegation. The investigator did not include the statements made by the ofQcer who is the
subject of the inquiry that he “avoids overtime” and is “eight at the gate.”
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and
four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and
four days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 13, 2020 the department received the incarcerated person’s declaration setting forth the staff
misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

270 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

inquiry until August 3, 2020, six months and 21 days thereafter. Also, the deadline for the department to take
disciplinary actions against the ofQcer was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
provide the hiring authority with the Qnal inquiry report until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 28, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 5, 2021, eight days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 271

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034534-IQ

Incident Date

On December 8, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person, striking the
incarcerated person with the door and injuring an arm and shoulder of the incarcerated person.

December 08,
2019

Allegations
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions and did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 18 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to ask relevant questions and did not use effective interviewing techniques during
interviews. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring
authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During the interview of an incarcerated person on August 13, 2020, the investigator did not ask follow-up
questions to ascertain the identity of the ofQcer who denied medical care to the injured incarcerated person.
Also, during an interview of an ofQcer on August 14, 2020, the investigator did not ask the ofQcer to give a
more detailed description of the ofQcer who allegedly intentionally closed a cell door on the incarcerated
person, and did not ask the ofQcer if he had ever heard inmates yell "old and slow," a phrase the incarcerated
person who submitted the allegation used when describing the manner in which staff opened and closed doors
for disabled incarcerated persons.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator
did not ask all relevant questions during interviews and did not timely complete the investigation.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 1, 2020, Qve

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

272 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

months and 18 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days
after the deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 273

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034512-IQ

Incident Date

On December 9, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person, causing the
incarcerated person to fall.

December 09,
2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, failed to ask relevant questions during interviews, failed to use effective interviewing
techniques, and failed to include relevant facts and evidence in the report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce
of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG
agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and 14 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, failed to ask relevant questions during interviews,
and failed to include relevant facts and evidence in the report. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
its inquiry report and submitted it to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator did not obtain a diagram of the housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred or
photographs of staff members to use during the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the
complaint to assist the incarcerated person in recalling facts concerning the incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask an ofQcer clarifying questions to ascertain if he was discussing a particular
incarcerated person or someone else with the same name, did not ask the ofQcer who was the subject of the
inquiry whether he had ever accidentally closed the door on an incarcerated person, and did not ask the ofQcer
who was the subject of the inquiry if he had heard any incarcerated persons utter a phrase that the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint claimed that other incarcerated persons yelled during the
incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator conducted the interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint in an ofQce
located in the same housing unit where the incident allegedly occurred. During the interview, staff congregated
in the area, looked inside the ofQce through a window, and even opened the door of the ofQce during the
interview, which signiQcantly compromised the conQdentiality and privacy of the interview. Also, during an
August 12, 2020, interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint containing the staff
misconduct allegation, one of two investigators acted in a dual role, not only as an investigator, asking
questions during the interview, but also as a staff assistant for the disabled incarcerated person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the OIG’s opinion, the inquiry report should have included a synopsis of an ofQcer’s interview, conducted in
another inquiry, in which the ofQcer discussed the allegation in this case.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

274 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month and 20 days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, six
months and 14 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 5, 2021, one month
and 20 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 275

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035298-IQ

Incident Date

On December 9, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person as the incarcerated
person exited a cell.

December 09,
2019

Allegations

Incident Summary

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Rating

Overall Assessment

Poor

Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until Qve months and 18 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG regarding an inquiry plan.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 1, 2020, Qve
months and 18 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, 20 days
after the deadline for taking disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

276 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035301-IQ

Incident Date

On December 9, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly taunted an incarcerated person by telling the incarcerated persons
that his attorneys were at the prison that day and asked whether he was summoned to talk to them. The
ofQcer also told the incarcerated person that a "snitch" was complaining about not getting documents that

December 09,
2019

Allegations
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allowed incarcerated persons permission to exit their cells.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and eight days after it learned of a staff misconduct allegation. In addition,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
On January 13, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation
until July 21, 2020, six months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was
January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until
February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not include as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report the policies and procedures for
incarcerated persons with disabilities.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on February 17, 2021, one month and four days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing a staff misconduct allegation. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 21, 2020, six

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 277

months and eight days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 17, 2021, one
month and four days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

278 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035273-IQ

Incident Date

On December 10, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly startled an incarcerated person by screaming at him and clapping
close to the incarcerated person's blind right side, and then subsequently laughed at the incarcerated person.

December 10,
2019

Allegations
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed potential staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s determination that there was reason to believe staff
misconduct occurred, but did not agree with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the matter to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs since the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. On April 21, 2021, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit did not approve an investigation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and 15 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation, and
allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire before completing the inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit
its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two months and 11 days after the deadline
to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On January 13, 2020, the
incarcerated person submitted a declaration containing the staff misconduct allegations. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until September 28, 2020,
eight months and 15 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was January 13, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, two
months and 11 days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action. The hiring authority did not refer the case
to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation until after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 279

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035225-IQ

Incident Date
December 11,
2019

On December 11, 2019, an ofQcer allegedly threatened an incarcerated person who had Qled a complaint
when he told the incarcerated person, "They interviewed me. I am a [expletive] Marine vet. I've been wounded.
You're not getting money out of this. They're going to believe anything I tell them."

Allegations

Disposition

Threat/Intimidation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's determinations.

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until seven months and 11 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 16, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, three months and seven days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was December 16, 2020. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, three months and seven days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On December 16, 2019, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until July 27, 2020, seven
months and 11 days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was December 16, 2020, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021,
three months and seven days after the deadline for taking disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

280 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035238-IQ

Incident Date

From December 19, 2019, through July 17, 2020, two sergeants and seven ofQcers allegedly routinely referred
to an incarcerated person as a "snitch." On May 13, 2020, one of the ofQcers allegedly made statements over a
public announcement system announcing that the incarcerated person would be participating in meetings with

December 19,
2019

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

attorneys in connection with being a member of a class action lawsuit against the department.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not appropriately conduct
interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry concerning allegations of staff misconduct until nine months and 20 days after it learned of
the allegations. Also, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions, did not use effective interviewing
techniques during interviews, and did not appropriately conduct interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational
questions and made reference to documents not clearly described on the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational
questions and made reference to documents not clearly described on the record. Also, during an interview of a
second incarcerated person, who did not speak English, an investigator served as the translator, but had direct
interaction in another language, interaction that the investigator did not capture on the record. In addition,
during an interview on March 16, 2021, the investigator interrupted a third incarcerated person multiple times
when he started to speak about staff misconduct. Finally, the investigator told a fourth incarcerated person
during an interview, "You're thinking that, but you dont think that . . . she’s never had that done before,"after the
witness said he knew an ofQcer committed misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not appropriately conduct the inquiry. The department did
not handle the case with due diligence. On June 26, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct
submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct the
inquiry into the allegation until April 15, 2021, nine months and 20 days thereafter. Also, the investigator did
not appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator interrupted and discouraged two incarcerated witnesses
when they attempted to speak about staff misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On June 26, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the department
did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegation until April 15, 2021, nine months and
20 days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 281

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035239-IQ

Incident Date
December 19,
2019

From December 19, 2019, though July 17, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person
because of the incarcerated person's participation in a civil lawsuit against the department and because the
incarcerated person Qled a misconduct complaint against another ofQcer.

Allegations

Disposition

Retaliation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include all relevant

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

evidence in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the
OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The investigator did not did not ask all relevant questions
during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include all relevant evidence in the
Qnal inquiry report. Also, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department initially
assigned an investigator to the case on June 29, 2020, but the department did not complete its inquiry until
May 28, 2021, 10 months and 29 days later.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
During a March 15, 2021, interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator did not ask relevant
foundational questions and made reference to documents not clearly described on the record. On March 16,
2021, during an interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator made reference to documents not clearly
described on the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an interview on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational questions and made
reference to documents not clearly described on the record. In addition, during an interview of another
incarcerated person, who did not speak English, an investigator served as the translator, but had direct
interaction in another language, interaction that the investigator did not capture on the record. On March 16,
2021, during an interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator made reference to documents not clearly
described on the record. Also, on March 16, 2021, investigators conducted interviews in the facility chapel,
which was not a conQdential location and had poor acoustics; this made it difQcult to hear and understand the
witnesses and allowed for multiple incarcerated person to walk into chapel, which interrupted the interviews
and allowed the witnesses to be known to other incarcerated persons walking into the room.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational questions and made
reference to documents not clearly described on the record. In addition, during an interview of another
incarcerated person, who did not speak English, an investigator served as the translator, but had direct
interaction in another language with the incarcerated person, interaction that the investigator did not capture
on the record. On March 16, 2021, during an interview of an incarcerated person, the investigator made
reference to documents not clearly described on the record. Also, investigators conducted interviews on March
16, 2021 in the facility chapel, which was not a conQdential location and had poor acoustics; this made it
difQcult to hear and understand the witnesses and allowed for multiple incarcerated person to walk into
chapel, which interrupted the interviews and allowed the witnesses to be known to other incarcerated persons
walking into the room. The failure to properly conduct these interviews eliminates the opportunity to reinterview these witnesses to obtain uninkuenced and unbiased testimony.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

282 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The investigator failed to include in the Qnal inquiry report summaries of the interviews that another
investigator conducted on March 15, 2021, in which the investigator questioned incarcerated persons and an
ofQcer about the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department initially assigned an investigator
to the case on June 29, 2020, but the department did not complete the inquiry until May 28, 2021, 10 months
and 29 days later.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 283

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034660-IQ

Incident Date

On January 13, 2020, after three ofQcers ordered an incarcerated person to exit a cell, an ofQcer allegedly
entered the incarcerated person's cell and threw the incarcerated person's property to the koor. A second
ofQcer and a third ofQcer also allegedly assisted the Qrst ofQcer with throwing items to the ground. The Qrst

January 13, 2020

Allegations
Use of Force
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

ofQcer allegedly wrongly conQscated an item belonging to the incarcerated person. The Qrst ofQcer also
allegedly failed to address the incarcerated person's safety concerns, tripped the incarcerated person, and
slammed him to the koor, which caused the incarcerated person to hit his head and lose consciousness. The
Qrst, second, and third ofQcers allegedly repeatedly punched and kicked the incarcerated person in the head,
ribs and legs, and were dishonest when they yelled at the incarcerated person, "Stop resisting." One of the
ofQcers allegedly placed a knee on the incarcerated person's back, causing the incarcerated person pain, and
another ofQcer improperly placed handcuffs behind the incarcerated person's back. A fourth ofQcer allegedly
forcefully pulled the incarcerated person to his feet and the fourth ofQcer and a Qfth ofQcer allegedly walked
the incarcerated person out of the housing unit without allowing the incarcerated person to use his walker or
cane. As the fourth ofQcer and Qfth ofQcer forcefully walked the incarcerated person outside of the housing unit
and to the gym, a sergeant allegedly said, "You're lucky. In the past, we would have been dragging your [a - -]
across the yard." A lieutenant allegedly failed to timely conduct an interview required in use-of-force cases.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not complete all
necessary and relevant interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not address in the
Qnal inquiry report all appropriate allegations as discovered during the inquiry. In addition, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach
a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to
take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs investigator did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not
address all appropriate allegations as discovered during the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report. In addition, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs completed submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting

interviews?
When referring to exhibits during witness interviews, the investigator did not mark exhibits and note the
marked exhibits for the interview recordings.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview the medical staff who completed the Medical Report of Injury or Unusual
Occurrence form pertaining to the incarcerated person who submitted the staff misconduct allegation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
The investigator did not address the allegation that a lieutenant allegedly timely failed to conduct a required
interview in this use-of-force case.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

284 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 31, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, two days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 31, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, two days after the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On January 30, 2020, the department received a staff misconduct grievance from the incarcerated person. On
February 6, 2020, the prison referred the staff misconduct grievance to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Allegation
Inquiry Management Section and requested an inquiry. On February 10, 2020, theAllegation Inquiry
Management Section rejected the prison's request for an inquiry, and a prison lieutenant subsequently
conducted a cursory inquiry into the allegations. To date, the hiring authority has not made a determination as
to the prison lieutenant's inquiry regarding whether staff violated departmental policy. Thereafter, on February
18, 2020, the incarcerated person submitted a declaration to the department describing the same staff
misconduct allegations. On June 16, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct a
second inquiry into the allegations, four months and 17 days after Qrst receiving the staff misconduct
grievance. The deadline to take disciplinary action was January 31, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did
not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until February 2, 2021, two days after the deadline to
take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 285

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037917-IQ

Incident Date

On January 13, 2020, after an incarcerated person reported to staff that he was suicidal and then objected to
being handcuffed behind his back because of a disability, an ofQcer allegedly slammed the incarcerated person
to the koor and repeatedly punched and kicked the incarcerated person's head and body. A second ofQcer

January 13, 2020

Allegations
Battery

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allegedly kicked the incarcerated person in the chest while he was on the ground and not resisting.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action
to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three
months after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.

Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on February 5, 2020. The deadline to take
disciplinary action was March 11, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to
the hiring authority until June 11, 2021, three months after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

286 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035286-IQ

Incident Date

Between January 26, 2020, and April 23, 2020, a counselor allegedly told an incarcerated person to spread the
word that another incarcerated person was a child molester. The counselor allegedly did this in retaliation for
the other incarcerated person Qling staff complaints against the counselor.

January 26, 2020

Allegations
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator the failed to complete thorough
interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG
agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit for an investigation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until three months and nine days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority only one month and seven days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview of an incarcerated person on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in an off-therecord conversation with the incarcerated person. During that conversation, the investigator agreed to look into
whether there was another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person had been previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit
after the interview and could provide proof that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit.
However, the investigator did not follow up on this information and obtain the documentation. Also, prior to
the interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with
two other incarcerated persons during which he asked them whether they knew the incarcerated person who
initiated the staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 15, 2020, and again off-the-record, the
investigator engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told
him that the interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and
described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of staff misconduct grievances. After the
interview, and also off-the-record, the investigator further engaged in an conversation during which he
explained the investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated was confused with
another incarcerated person who shared the last name.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview of an incarcerated person on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in an off-therecord conversation with the incarcerated person. During that conversation, the investigator agreed to look into
whether there was another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person had been previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit
after the interview and could provide proof that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit.
However, the investigator did not followup on this information and obtain the documentation. Also, prior to the
interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with two
other incarcerated persons during which he asked them whether they knew the incarcerated person who
initiated the staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 15, 2020, and again off-the-record, the
investigator engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told
him that the interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 287

described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also offthe-record, the investigator further engaged in a conversation during which he explained the investigative
process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another incarcerated
person who shared the last name.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On April 29, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
August 7, 2020, three months and nine days thereafter. Also, the investigator completed the Qnal interview on
October 15, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its report until March 23, 2021, Qve
months and eight days after the Qnal interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 29, 2021, but
the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one
month and seven days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. Thereafter, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs conducted a rushed investigation, which resulted in the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitting its
investigative report to the hiring authority on the day before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
The hiring authority admitted that, in arriving at her decision not to sustain allegations, the hiring authority had
not reviewed the interview recordings because the OfQce of Internal Affairs had only provided the investigative
materials to her on the day before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

288 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034583-IQ

Incident Date
February 20, 2020

Between February 20, 2020, and March 27, 2020, ofQcers allegedly directed derogatory terms, such as "rat"
and "snitch" to an incarcerated person who had previously reported the death of another incarcerated person.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete all
necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However,
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce
of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry because it did not assign an investigator to conduct an
inquiry until two months and two days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The investigator
failed to complete all necessary and relevant interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed
and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority two days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview any prison staff who worked inside the housing unit during the time period
of the allegations. In addition, the investigator did not interview the ofQcers who allegedly committed the
misconduct.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 23, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted
its inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 21, 2021, two days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On April 23, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by an incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until June 25, 2020, two
months and two days thereafter. Also, the deadline to take disciplinary action was April 23, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, two
days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 289

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036218-IQ

Incident Date

Between March 1, 2020, and March 7, 2020, a control booth ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an
incarcerated person's wheel chair, trapping the incarcerated person in the cell door and causing the
incarcerated person to be stuck for approximately seventy to eighty seconds, during which the the incarcerated

March 01, 2020

Allegations

Incident Summary

Neglect of Duty

person yelled at the ofQcer three times and requested to be released before the ofQcer released the
incarcerated person.

Overall Rating

Disposition

Poor

The hiring authority identiQed potential staff misconduct but did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs and instead implemented corrective action by providing training to staff members. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques during
interviews and did not search for or collect all relevant evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of
Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was reasonable
belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation by
the incarcerated person on May 14, 2020, but did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry until June
16, 2020, one month and two days thereafter. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of
the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews, and did not search for all relevant
evidence. The Qnal inquiry report did not include all relevant facts and evidence. The investigator conducted
the Qnal interview on October 6, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report
until April 19, 2021, six months and 13 days after the last interview. Upon review of the Qnal inquiry report,
the hiring authority presented additional relevant evidence, which the investigator did not discover during the
inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use staff photographs to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. On October 6, 2020, a different
investigator interviewed the incarcerated person for a second time regarding the same allegations even though
a previous investigator had already questioned the incarcerated person regarding those allegations.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use staff photographs to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use staff photographs to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. The investigator did not search the control
booth or booths for any evidence related to the opening and closing of cell doors. The hiring authority later
presented evidence relevant to this inquiry found in a control booth.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use staff photographs to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. On October 6, 2020, another investigator
interviewed the incarcerated person again regarding the same allegations. The investigator did not search the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

290 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

control booths for any evidence related to the opening and closing of cell doors. The hiring authority later
presented evidence found in the control booth relevant to this inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report did not include relevant evidence that housing control booth ofQcers were using
unauthorized items to open and close cell doors. The hiring authority later presented the evidence in a
memorandum concerning his review of the Qnal inquiry report.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 15, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the
hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and recordings until April 19, 2021, only 26 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action. In the OIG’s opinion, this is not a sufQcient amount of time for the hiring
authority to review the case materials and then request additional inquiry, if necessary, before the deadline for
taking disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on May 14, 2020, but did not assign an investigator
to conduct the inquiry until June 16, 2020, 33 days thereafter. The investigator completed the last interview on
October 6, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until April 19, 2021, only 26 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action, which was May 15, 2021.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 291

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035219-IQ

Incident Date

On March 5, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person by refusing to summon a
plumber to stop water and sewage from entering the incarcerated person's cell and by denying the
incarcerated person disinfectant and cleaning supplies while laughing and taunting the incarcerated person.

March 05, 2020

Allegations
Retaliation
Neglect of Duty
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

The ofQcer allegedly forced the incarcerated person to eat breakfast in his cell, rather than in the dayroom,
while raw sewage remained in the incarcerated person's cell.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 29, 2020, the department learned of the incarcerated person's allegation of staff misconduct.
However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until July 27, 2020,
one month and 28 days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

292 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034787-IQ

Incident Date

On March 8, 2020, ofQcers allegedly denied a kosher meal to an incarcerated person. Additional ofQcers
entered the dining hall and surrounded the incarcerated person, and a second ofQcer allegedly threw the
incarcerated person's walker to the ground. A third ofQcer and a fourth ofQcer allegedly grabbed the

March 08, 2020

Allegations
Other
Assault
Discourteous
Treatment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Use of Force

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person by the arms, threw him against a wall, and pinned the incarcerated person's head against a
wall with his hand, causing an injury to the incarcerated person's head. The ofQcers who entered the dining hall
also allegedly told the incarcerated person, "F--- you," and, "We know you assault cops".

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately prepare for for
all aspects of the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all
relevant facts and evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did
not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately prepare for for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not
complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence, had substantive off-the record conversations with a witness, failed to provide an
advisement at the beginning of each interview, and failed to provide an admonishment concerning
conQdentiality at the end of each interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted
its inquiry report to the hiring authority until 62 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator failed to obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet so as not to have interviewed a staff
member who did not work in the area where the incident occurred and whose statement was, therefore, not
relevant to the inquiry.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator used leading questions, spoke over and interrupted the witnesses when they were answering
questions, and did not allow witnesses to fully convey the information. The investigator's actions made the
interview recordings difQcult to understand.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview the incarcerated persons who worked in the area at the time of the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet so as not to have interviewed a staff
member who did not work in the area where the incident occurred and whose statement, therefore, was not
relevant to the inquiry. The investigator failed to interview the incarcerated persons who worked in the area at
the time of the incident. In addition, an investigator failed to question multiple witnesses about other
allegations involved in other inquiries that were made by same incarcerated person, despite being aware of the
allegations, and thereby necessitating multiple interviews of the same witnesses by a second investigator.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 293

facts and evidence?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to include a summary of the incarcerated person's statement
that the incarcerated person had written a letter to the warden informing the warden of the alleged misconduct
and that an associate warden had responded to the letter, and the investigator failed to address the
incarcerated person's safety concerns. The investigator did not attach either the letter or the response as
exhibits. The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry
concerning the allegations on September 1, 2020. However, the department assigned the initial investigator on
August 25, 2020.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator failed to include a letter written by the incarcerated person to the
warden detailing the alleged staff misconduct and the written response by an associate warden to the
incarcerated person's letter.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 25, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, 62 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

294 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034788-IQ

Incident Date

On March 9, 2020, ofQcers allegedly arranged for incarcerated persons to stab another incarcerated person.

March 09, 2020

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary
Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately
prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask relevant questions during the interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques when conducting the interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant
interviews, did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry, and had off-the-record conversations
during the interview. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not
reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline
to take disciplinary action had expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to adequately prepare for all
aspects of the inquiry, did not ask relevant questions during the interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting the interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and had
off-the-record conversations during an interview.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The department did not confer with OIG upon case initiation and prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
The investigator failed to obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet in order to conQrm which ofQcers actually
worked at the time of the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The initial investigator failed to question multiple witnesses about other allegations made by the incarcerated
person who submitted the complaint, despite being aware of the allegations, thereby necessitating multiple
interviews of the same witnesses for related inquiries.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator asked leading questions, which failed to establish that the witnesses had an independent
recollection of the events.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator failed to interview any departmental staff who worked in the incarcerated person's housing
unit at the time of the incident.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator failed to obtain a copy of the employee sign-in sheet in order to conQrm which ofQcers actually
worked at the time of the incident. In addition, an investigator failed to question multiple witnesses about
related allegations contained within the incarcerated person's written complaint, thereby necessitating
multiple interviews of the same witnesses by a second investigator.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 295

The report incorrectly states that the department Qrst assigned an investigator on September 1, 2020.
However, the department assigned the initial investigator on August 26, 2020. The investigator failed to
include in his report a summary of the incarcerated person's statement that the incarcerated person wrote a
letter to the warden informing the warden of the alleged misconduct and that an associate warden responded
to the letter, and the investigator failed to address the incarcerated person's safety concerns. The investigator
did not attach either the letter or the response as exhibits.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 13, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, 62 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

296 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034511-IQ

Incident Date

On March 14, 2020, a counselor allegedly told an incarcerated person that another incarcerated person had
been convicted of sex crimes against children, which was not true, but placed the other incarcerated person in
danger of being assaulted by incarcerated persons.

March 14, 2020

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete thorough interviews
and did not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews. Despite the poor quality of the
inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until three months and nine days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also, the
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority one month and seven days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
On September 9, 2020,during interviews of two incarcerated persons, the investigator did not ask appropriate
follow-up questions. Also, the investigator did not ask questions to determine whether other incarcerated
persons were involved in a Qght with the incarcerated person who allegedly spread false information.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview of an incarcerated person on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in an off-therecord conversation with the incarcerated person. During the conversation, the investigator agreed to look into
whether there was another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person had been previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit
after the interview and could provide proof that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit.
However, the investigator did not follow up on this information and obtain the documentation.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview of an incarcerated person on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in an off-therecord conversation with the incarcerated person. During the conversation, the investigator agreed to look into
whether there was another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person had been previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit
after the interview and could provide proof that he had been placed in the administrative segregation unit.
However, the investigator did not follow up on this information and obtain the documentation. On September
9, 2020,during interviews of two incarcerated persons, the investigator did not ask appropriate follow-up
questions. Also, the investigator did not ask questions to determine whether other incarcerated persons were
involved in a Qght with the incarcerated person who allegedly spread false information.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 297

The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 29, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its
inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month and seven days before the deadline to
take disciplinary action expired. Thereafter, the OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted a rushed investigation,
which resulted in the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitting its investigative report to the hiring authority on the
day before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The hiring authority admitted that, in arriving at her
decision not to sustain allegations, the hiring authority had not reviewed the interview recordings since the
OfQce of Internal Affairs had provided the investigative materials to her on the day before the deadline to take
disciplinary action expired.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On April 29, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7, 2020, three
months and nine days thereafter. Also, the investigator completed the Qnal interview on September 9, 2020,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its report until March 23, 2021, six months and 14 days after
the Qnal interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 29, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs
did not submit its inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 23, 2021, one month and seven days before
the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. Thereafter, the OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted a rushed
investigation, which resulted in the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitting its investigative report to the hiring
authority on the day before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired. The hiring authority admitted that,
in arriving at her decision not to sustain allegations, the hiring authority had not reviewed the interview
recordings because the OfQce of Internal Affairs had provided the investigative materials to her on the day
before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

298 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035220-IQ

Incident Date
March 18, 2020

On March 18, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly ordered a disabled incarcerated person to stand, handcuffed the
incarcerated person, and pushed him to the ground.

Allegations

Disposition

Use of Force

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective
interviewing techniques and unnecessarily disclosed information to a witness. Due to the poor quality of the

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until four months and seven days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also,
the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques and also unnecessary disclosed information to a
witness. Finally, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
On January 25, 2021, the investigator did not make a clear record regarding the exhibits discussed during the
interview of an ofQcer.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview of an ofQcer on September 11, 2020, the investigator told the ofQcer that "everything (she)
described so far is pretty muchcoinciding with what (the inmate’s) alleging” even though the ofQcer stated that
she did not recall or observe several aspects of the incident. The investigator then described the details of the
incarcerated person's account of the incident. In an off-the-record conversation on January 25, 2021, the
investigator told an ofQcer approximately how many ofQcers he was interviewing and why he was interviewing
them.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 20, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, four days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 20, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, four days after the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On March 20, 2020, the
department learned of the incarcerated person's allegation of staff misconduct. However, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until July 27, 2020, four months and seven days

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 299

thereafter. The deadline for the department to take disciplinary action was March 20, 2021, but the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete its report until March 24, 2021, four days after the deadline for taking
disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

300 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035435-IQ

Incident Date

On March 18, 2020, ofQcers allegedly did not follow physical distancing requirements related to the novel
coronavirus when they formed a line and hugged a female ofQcer at the end of a shift. After an incarcerated
person complained, one of the ofQcers allegedly threatened to harm the incarcerated person, and the ofQcer

March 18, 2020

Allegations
Assault
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

allegedly shoved the incarcerated person's walker into the incarcerated person's body, causing the incarcerated
person to fall. Departmental staff allegedly retaliated against the incarcerated person for reporting the alleged
assault by placing him naked in a holding cell for approximately 15 minutes.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
follow-up questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques when using exhibits, and
did not obtain relevant evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG
did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the
deadline to take disciplinary action had expired, and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and 13 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegations. The
investigator did not ask all relevant follow-up questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing
techniques when using exhibits, did not obtain relevant evidence, and did not timely provide case materials to
the OIG. The OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
An investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry. The investigator did not obtain and
review a copy of a recording of a March 18, 2020, interview that a lieutenant conducted of the incarcerated
person during which the incarcerated person made the allegation of an unreasonable use of force. The video
recording was relevant not only because the incarcerated person provided details regarding his complaint, but
also because the recording showed the extent of the incarcerated person's injuries after the use-of-force
incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
On October 15, 2020, the investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions during a witness interview. The
witness described an important event relevant to the inquiry. However, the investigator did not ask when it
occurred. Also, the witness described other staff involvement in a second important event relevant to the
inquiry. However, the investigator did not ask for the names of the staff witnesses. Finally, the investigator did
not question two ofQcers regarding the extent of their relationship, an issue relevant to the inquiry.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
On October 15, 2020, the investigator did not effectively use exhibits during an interview. The investigator did
not adequately identify the exhibits on the record, did not have the witness describe the exhibits for the record,
and did not have the witness mark the exhibits.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 301

The incarcerated person participated in a video-recorded interview with a lieutenant on the same day the useof-force incident occurred; during the interview, the incarcerated person complained of an unreasonable use of
force. For purposes of this inquiry, the investigators did not obtain and review a copy of the interview recording,
and they produced a Qnal inquiry report that did not contain the recording as an exhibit. After the OIG
requested the recording, the OfQce of Internal Affairs secured a copy of the recording and provided it to the
OIG.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions of a key witness, did not use effective interviewing
techniques while using exhibits, and did not provide an admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of
four interviews of incarcerated persons.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report did not include a copy of a March 18, 2020, recording of an interview that a lieutenant
conducted of the incarcerated person during which the incarcerated person made the allegation of
unreasonable use of force. The video recording was relevant not only because the incarcerated person provided
details regarding his complaint, but also because the recording showed the extent of the incarcerated person's
injuries after the use-of-force incident.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 18, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, six days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 18, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, six days after the deadline to take disciplinary
action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On March 18, 2020, after an ofQcer allegedly shoved the incarcerated person's walker into his body, the
incarcerated person complained of an unreasonable use of force. A lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated
person on video regarding the allegation on the same day. On April 1, 2020, a departmental manager directed
the lieutenant to interview an ofQcer involved in the incident. However, on April 17, 2020, the incarcerated
person Qled a staff misconduct grievance. The prison referred the staff misconduct grievance to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs Allegation Inquiry Management Section. On May 6, 2020, an Allegation Inquiry Management
Section lieutenant interviewed the incarcerated person; on May 9, 2020, the lieutenant interviewed two
ofQcers; on May 13, 2020, the lieutenant interviewed an ofQcer who was a subject of the inquiry for allegedly
not reporting the use-of-force; and on May 21, 2021, the lieutenant interviewed the ofQcer who was a subject
of the inquiry for allegedly assaulting the incarcerated person. Thereafter, the Allegation Inquiry Management
Section completed a full inquiry report and submitted it to the hiring authority. Upon receipt of the Allegation
Inquiry Management Section report, the hiring authority did not make a Qnding. On May 21, 2020, the
department received a declaration from the incarcerated person setting forth the same misconduct allegations.
On September 28, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct another inquiry
concerning the allegations, four months and seven days after receipt of the declaration. On October 13, 2020,
the investigator interviewed the incarcerated person and, on October 15, 2020, interviewed an ofQcer. On
December 8, 2020, another investigator interviewed four additional incarcerated persons. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2020, three months and 16
days after the last interview. The deadline to take disciplinary action was March 18, 2021, but the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until March 24, 2021, six days after
the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired. Finally, the investigators assigned to this inquiry did not

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

302 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

obtain nor view a copy of the March 18, 2020, recording of the interview of the incarcerated person in which he
complained of the alleged unreasonable use of force. As of the publication date of this report, the hiring
authority has not conQrmed whether he ever received and viewed a copy of the interview recording prior to
making his decision regarding the disposition of this case.

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
On March 6, 2021, the OIG requested a copy of an interview recording, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
provide the recording until April 13, 2021, one month and seven days thereafter, and only after the OIG had
elevated the issue to a senior special agent.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 303

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035264-IQ

Incident Date

On March 31, 2020, six ofQcers allegedly deployed pepper spray on an incarcerated person and tackled him,
causing the incarcerated person to hit his head on the ground and sustain black eyes, a broken nose, and a
broken foot.

March 31, 2020

Allegations
Assault

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority previously referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs, which approved addressing
the allegation without an investigation. Therefore, the hiring authority did not need to submit an additional
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The hiring authority had previously
submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs concerning the allegation and, therefore, the investigator
did not conduct any interviews.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

304 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035266-IQ

Incident Date
March 31, 2020

On March 31, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly lied in a rules violation report by stating an incarcerated person tried to
hit the ofQcer after an alarm sounded, but that was not true.

Allegations

Disposition

Dishonesty

The hiring authority previously referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs, which approved addressing
the allegation without an investigation. Therefore, the hiring authority did not need to submit an additional
referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The hiring authority had previously
submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. Therefore, the investigator did not conduct any interviews.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 305

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035267-IQ

Incident Date

On March 31, 2020, six ofQcers allegedly battered an incarcerated person in a dayroom.

March 31, 2020

Allegations
Assault

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary
Disposition
The hiring authority had previously submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs concerning the
allegation and the OfQce of Internal Affairs had previously approved the hiring authority to address the
allegation without an investigation. Therefore, there was no need for the hiring authority to refer the matter to
the OfQce of Internal Affairs again.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner. The hiring authority had previously
submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs and, therefore, the investigator did not conduct any
interviews.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

306 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035289-IQ

Incident Date
April 01, 2020

Between April 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly spread false information about the
commitment offenses of incarcerated persons.

Allegations

Disposition

Discrimination/Hara
ssment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete thorough
interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Affairs inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until two months and 19 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority one month and 26 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation
with an incarcerated person during which the investigator told the incarcerated person that he would look into
whether there is another active, related investigation in which the incarcerated person was previously
interviewed. The incarcerated person added that he had been placed into administrative segregation after the
interview and could provide proof. However, the investigator did not follow-up and request the documentation.
The incarcerated person further stated that he was open to talking to investigators. Prior to the interviews on
October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with two other
incarcerated persons during which he asked them if they knew the incarcerated person who initiated the staff
complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the investigator
engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told him that the
interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and described that
incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-the-record, the
investigator further engaged in an improper conversation with an incarcerated person during which he
explained the investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused
with another incarcerated person who share the last name.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, the investigator engaged in a conversation with an incarcerated
person during which the investigator revealed that the incarcerated person might be involved in another active
investigation, and failed to request relevant documentation in possession of the incarcerated person that may
have been relevant to show he had been previously interviewed in the other investigation. Prior to the
interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with two
other incarcerated persons during which he asked them whether they knew the incarcerated person who
initiated the staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the
investigator engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told
him that the interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and
described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 307

the-record, the investigator further engaged in a conversation with an incarcerated person during which he
explained the investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused
with another incarcerated person who share the last name.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On May 19, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 26 days before to the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. May 19, 2020, the department
learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the department did
not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7, 2020, two months and 19
days thereafter. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 26 days
before to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

308 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037599-IQ

Incident Date
April 01, 2020

Between April 1, 2020, and April 30, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly called an incarcerated person a derogatory
name when the incarcerated person asked to use a telephone.

Allegations

Disposition

Discourteous
Treatment

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

interviewing techniques, and did not address all appropriate allegations. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce
of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct. The OIG recommended the hiring authority request the OfQce of Internal Affairs
conduct further inquiry work. The hiring authority did not accept the OIG's recommendation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and seven days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. Also,
the investigator failed to prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not address all appropriate allegations.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
On January 28, 2021, the investigator did not have a diagram of the housing unit prepared during the interview
of the incarcerated person who submitted the allegations, who was disabled, to describe where different
events occurred relative to the allegations. Instead, the investigator asked the disabled incarcerated person to
draw the housing unit, even after the incarcerated person stated he could not draw.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions during an interview of the incarcerated
person on January 28, 2021. The incarcerated person alleged that, on a date independent of the date of the
allegations for which the incarcerated person was being interviewed, an ofQcer pointed a rike at him without
justiQcation, but the investigator did not ask the incarcerated person any follow-up questions concerning that
allegation. Also, the incarcerated person gave the investigator the names of three other incarcerated persons
whom staff had routinely mistreated as he had been mtreated, but the investigator did not ask any follow-up
questions regarding those individuals or those allegations.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, on January 28, 2021, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. The
investigator did not have a diagram of the housing unit prepared for the incarcerated person to describe where
misconduct occurred. Instead, the investigator asked the disabled incarcerated person to draw the housing unit,
even after the incarcerated person stated he could not draw. Also, the investigator asked questions about the
allegation of misconduct in this inquiry and about an additional allegation of misconduct that occurred on a
different date and is addressed in a separate inquiry. However, the investigator used the same exhibit for both
inquiries during the interview of the incarcerated person on January 28, 2021. The investigator should have
prepared two diagrams of the housing unit for the incarcerated person to mark for each of the two separate
incidents from the two separate inquiries.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 309

In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator
did not follow up on additional allegations of staff misconduct an incarcerated person presented to the
investigator during an interview of the incarcerated person. Also, one investigator served in the roles of both
investigator of the disabled incarcerated person and staff assistant to the disabled incarcerated person during
the same interview on January 21, 2021.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not address all appropriate allegations. An incarcerated person
alleged that, on a date independent of the date of the allegations for which the incarcerated person was being
interviewed, an ofQcer pointed a rike at him without justiQcation; however, the investigator did not ask the
incarcerated person any follow-up questions. Also, the incarcerated person gave the investigator the names of
three other incarcerated persons whom staff had routinely mistreated in a as he had been mistreated, but the
investigator did not ask any follow-up questions regarding those individuals or those allegations. Instead, the
investigator said he did not want to talk about other people's problems with staff misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 14, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegation until
January 21, 2021, eight months and seven days thereafter. Also, the investigator completed the Qnal interview
on February 19, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority until April 21, 2021, two months and one day thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

310 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037645-IQ

Incident Date

Between April 1, 2020, and April 14, 2020, two ofQcers allegedly allowed an incarcerated person to enter a
second incarcerated person’s housing unit in order to threaten and intimidate the second incarcerated person
for reporting staff misconduct. On April 15, 2020, ofQcers allegedly again allowed the Qrst incarcerated person

April 01, 2020

Allegations
Neglect of Duty
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

back into the housing unit, even though he was not housed there, in order to threaten and intimidate the
second incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions and failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews. Due to the poor quality of the
OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until eight months and Qve days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegations. The
investigator did not ask all relevant questions, failed to use effective interviewing techniques during interviews,
inappropriately provided information to a witness, and conducted interviews of incarcerated persons in an
insufQciently private location.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions during an interview of a sergeant on
March 30, 2021. The sergeant conQrmed he was familiar with the incarcerated person who allegedly
threatened the incarcerated person who made the allegations, but the investigator did not ask the sergeant
logical follow-up questions, such as how the sergeant was familiar with him. Also, the investigator failed to
seek clariQcation when the sergeant stated that ofQcers are not supposed to allow incarcerated persons into
buildings where they are not housed, even though the sergeant earlier stated that he did not know if ofQcers
had discretion to do so.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During interviews on March 30, 2021, the investigator showed witnesses exhibits that were not marked, and,
during one interview, the investigator showed a witness a photograph, but did not state for the record that the
investigator had done so. In addition, during an interview on April 1, 2021, of one of the ofQcers who was the
subject of the inquiry, the investigator permitted the ofQcer's representative to answer a question and provide
substantive information. The investigator also asked leading questions during the interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator
told a sergeant that another witness authored a conQdential memorandum and that the investigator intended
to interview that witness on another date. Also, on March 30, 2021, an investigator conducted interviews of
incarcerated persons in a lieutenant's ofQce with transparent windows and when there were other incarcerated
persons in the building.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On May 22, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegations submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegations until
January 27, 2021, eight months and Qve days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 311

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037933-IQ

Incident Date

On April 18, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly grabbed a disabled incarcerated person and slammed the incarcerated
person to the ground, causing the incarcerated person's head to hit the koor. The ofQcer and a second ofQcer
tightly placed handcuffs on the incarcerated person behind his back, despite a directive that the incarcerated

April 18, 2020

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Use of Force
Neglect of Duty
Dishonesty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

person only be handcuffed in front of his body so that he can continue to use a cane while in handcuffs. A total
of approximately ten ofQcers responded to the scene, and one of the ofQcers placed a knee on the incarcerated
person's back while another ofQcer stepped on the incarcerated person's ankles. The ofQcers allegedly placed
the incarcerated person on a gurney after placing the incarcerated person in leg restraints and a spit mask.
During the incident, the incarcerated person sustained numerous injuries, including bleeding, pain to his his
head, and a broken wrist. Subsequent to the date of the incident, the Qrst ofQcer allegedly issued a false rules
violation report to the incarcerated person in which the ofQcer falsely claimed that the incarcerated person
turned towards the ofQcer with a clenched Qst. Also, subsequent to the incident, staff in the building allegedly
attempted to scare and threaten him by referring to him as the person who "beat up staff" and also allegedly
surrounded him while he was in a holding cell and menacingly stared at him.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify potential staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all
relevant questions, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not investigate all allegations submitted
by an incarcerated person, and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. Due to the poor quality
of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a
reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired and,
therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was not necessary.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation on
April 18, 2020, but did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations until February 17,
2021, nine months and 30 days thereafter. Also, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions during an
interview, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews,
and did not investigate all allegations submitted by an incarcerated person. The Qnal report did not accurately
rekect all allegations and subjects of the inquiry. Finally, the department allowed the deadline to take
disciplinary action to expire before completion of the inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In the OIG’s opinion, during an interview of an ofQcer on May 6, 2021, the investigator asked leading questions
and did not ask relevant questions, such as whether the ofQcer knew whether the incarcerated person who
submitted the complaint had a directive that the incarcerated person was to be handcuffed only in front of his
body so that he could continue to use a cane while in handcuffs. Also, the investigator did not ask relevant
questions regarding an incarcerated person suffering a broken wrist.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG’s opinion, during an interview of an ofQcer on May 6, 2021, the investigator utilized multiple leading
and conclusory questions, resulting in a hurried and conclusory interview.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
An incarcerated person submitted a complaint against two ofQcers for having committed misconduct. The
investigator conducted an inquiry into the allegations against one ofQcer. The investigator also identiQed an
allegation against a second ofQcer. However, the investigator did not investigate the allegation against the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

312 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

second ofQcer, nor did he interview the second ofQcer. Moreover, the investigator did not interview six other
ofQcers who were involved in or saw the use-of-force incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation by
the incarcerated person on April 18, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the incarcerated person Qled a declaration
alleging staff misconduct, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry
until February 17, 2021, nine months and 30 days thereafter. Also, on July 2, 2020, the incarcerated person
submitteda second complaint in the form of a staff misconduct grievance alleging staff misconduct regarding
the same incident that occurred on April 18, 2020.On August 12, 2020, the department assigned a lieutenant
to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of misconduct. On November 17, 2020, at the completion of the
inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate department policy.During interviews in the current
inquiry by the OfQce of Internal Affairs, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions and used ineffective
interviewing techniques. The investigator did not complete all necessary interviews. The investigator identiQed
an allegation against a second ofQcer. However, the investigator did not investigate the allegation nor
interview the second ofQcer who allegedly committed misconduct. The department allowed the deadline to
take disciplinary action to expire before completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was
April 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until May 26, 2021, one month and eight days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The Qnal inquiry report did not contain all allegations submitted by an incarcerated person, nor did it rekect
that the incarcerated person identiQed a second ofQcer as having also committed misconduct. The Qnal inquiry
report did not accurately rekect the investigator’s leading and conclusory questions and the answers provided
by an ofQcer whom he interviewed.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide
the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and recordings until May 26, 2021, one month and eight
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide
the hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and recordings until May 26, 2021, one month and eight
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG’s opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department learned of the
staff misconduct allegation by the incarcerated person on April 18, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the incarcerated
person Qled a declaration alleging staff misconduct, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not assign an
investigator to conduct the inquiry until February 17, 2021, nine months and 30 days thereafter. Also, on July
2, 2020, the incarcerated person submitteda second complaint in the form of a staff misconduct grievance
alleging staff misconduct regarding the same incident that occurred on April 18, 2020.On August 12, 2020, the
department assigned a lieutenant to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of misconduct. On November 17,
2020, at the completion of the inquiry, the hiring authority determined staff did not violate department
policy.During interviews of the current inquiry by the OfQce of Internal Affairs, the investigator did not ask all
relevant questions and usedineffective interviewing techniques. The investigator did not complete all
necessary interviews. The investigator identiQed an allegation against a second ofQcer. However, the
investigator did not investigate the allegation nor interview the second ofQcer who allegedly committed
misconduct. Finally, the department allowed the deadline to take disciplinary action to expire before

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 313

completion of the inquiry. The deadline to take disciplinary action was April 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal
Affairs did not submit the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until May 26, 2021, one month and eight
days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

314 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037885-IQ

Incident Date

On April 19, 2020, two ofQcers allegedly handcuffed an incarcerated person and intentionally left the
incarcerated person unattended. A second incarcerated person proceeded to assault the Qrst incarcerated
person while the two ofQcers allegedly watched the assault. The two ofQcers allegedly did not intervene until

April 19, 2020

Allegations
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

the second incarcerated person stopped assaulting the Qrst incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority found the inquiry to be insufQcient and returned the inquiry to the OfQce of Internal Affairs
for supplemental inquiry work. Upon submission of the supplemental inquiry report, the hiring authority did
not identify staff misconduct and did not refer matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, and did not
thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff
misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. Although the department learned of the alleged staff
misconduct on July 24, 2020, it did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the alleged misconduct
until January 25, 2021, six months and one day after learning of the alleged misconduct. The investigator did
not use effective interviewing techniques when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and
relevant interviews, did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other forensic evidence,
and failed to provide an admonishment concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal report for this case to the hiring authority until July 7,
2021, 17 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During witness interviews, the investigator failed to use a diagram of the housing unit, which would have
allowed witnesses to provide a clear description of their locations and the locations of the involved parties
during the incident. In addition, the investigator did not use photographs of the named subjects of this inquiry
or of the alleged assailant, which would have allowed the investigator to conQrm the identities of those
involved.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
During the inquiry, the investigator failed to interview the alleged victim of the incident, the incarcerated
person whom ofQcers allegedly placed in hand restraints near a cell and whom another incarcerated person
assaulted while two ofQcers stood by and watched the assault. After the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its
Qnal inquiry report and submitted it to the hiring authority, the OIG identiQed that the OfQce of Internal Affairs
had conducted an incomplete inquiry that did not include an interview of the alleged victim. The OIG
recommended to the hiring authority that he return the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for further inquiry
work and request that the OfQce of Internal Affairs interview the alleged victim. Only then did the OfQce of
Internal Affairs complete the interview of the alleged victim.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator failed to obtain the rules violation report issued to the incarcerated person who assaulted the
restrained incarcerated person to determine whether the rules violation report documents contained
statements from the alleged victim of the assault or contained additional information concerning the incident.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 315

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During the inquiry, the investigator failed to interview the alleged victim of the incident, the incarcerated
person whom ofQcers allegedly placed in handcuffs near a cell and whom another incarcerated person
assaulted while two ofQcers stood by and watched the assault. After the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed its
Qnal inquiry report and submitted it to the hiring authority, the OIG identiQed that the OfQce of Internal Affairs
had conducted an incomplete inquiry that did not include an interview of the alleged victim, and the OIG
recommended to the hiring authority that he return the case to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for further inquiry
work. Only then did the OfQce of Internal Affairs complete the interview of the alleged victim.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was July 24, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal
inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 24, 2021, 30 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
However, the hiring authority determined that the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry was not complete and
requested that the OfQce of Internal Affairs conduct an interview of the alleged victim. On July 2, 2021, the
OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted the interview and submitted a supplemental inquiry report to the hiring
authority on July 7, 2021, 17 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the alleged misconduct on July 24, 2020 but did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry into the alleged misconduct until January 25, 2021, six months and one day after learning of
the misconduct. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report until June 24,
2021, only 30 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action, and a supplemental inquiry report on July 7,
2021, 17 days before to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

316 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035288-IQ

Incident Date
April 23, 2020

On April 23, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly Qled a false rules violation report against an incarcerated person
alleging that the incarcerated person threatened to physically harm the ofQcer.

Allegations

Disposition

Dishonesty

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete thorough
interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until two months and 19 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority one month and 26 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview on October 15, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation with
an incarcerated person during which he asked him if he knew the incarcerated person who initiated the staff
complaint allegation and described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. Prior to
an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the investigator engaged in another conversation
with an incarcerated person during which the investigator told him that the interview involved the incarcerated
person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and described that incarcerated person as someone who
Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-the-record, the investigator further engaged in a
conversation with the incarcerated person during which he explained the investigative process and discussed
the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another incarcerated person who share the last
name.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on October 15, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in an a conversation
with an incarcerated person during which he asked him if he knew the incarcerated person who initiated the
staff complaint allegation and described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints.
Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation
with another incarcerated person during which the investigator told him that the interview involved the
incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and described that incarcerated person as
someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also off-the-record, the investigator further
engaged in an improper conversation with the incarcerated person during which he explained the investigative
process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another incarcerated
person who share the last name.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On May 19, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 26 days before to the
deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 317

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. May 19, 2020, the department
learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the department did
not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7, 2020, two months and 19
days thereafter. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 26 days
before to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

318 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035287-IQ

Incident Date

On April 23, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly moved an incarcerated person into a second incarcerated person's cell
and handed the Qrst incarcerated person a towel containing a knife. The ofQcer allegedly threatened to poison
the second incarcerated person with a synthetic opiate. The ofQcer also allegedly told other incarcerated

April 23, 2020

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation
Dishonesty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

persons that the second incarcerated person was a sex offender, and allegedly submitted a false suicide
referral concerning the second incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to complete thorough
interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until two months and 18 days after it learned of the staff misconduct allegation. The
investigator failed to complete thorough interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques when
conducting interviews. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and submitted its inquiry report to
the hiring authority one month and 27 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation
with an incarcerated person during which the investigator told the incarcerated person that he would look into
whether there is another active investigation in which the incarcerated person was previously interviewed. The
incarcerated person added that he had been placed into administrative segregation after the interview and
could provide proof. However, the investigator did not follow-up and request the documentation. The
incarcerated person further stated that he was open to talking to investigators. Prior to an interview on
September 18, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator showed an ofQcer diagrams of a prison dining
hall and asked the ofQcer clarifying question about his knowledge of what was depicted in the diagram. After
the interview, and also off-the-record, the ofQcer discussed his overall lack of recollection of the event with the
investigator. Prior to the interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in
conversations with two other incarcerated persons during which he asked them if they knew the incarcerated
person who initiated the staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again offthe-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the
investigator told him that the interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint
allegation and described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview,
and also off-the-record, the investigator further engaged in a conversation during which he explained the
investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused with another
incarcerated person who share the last name.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
Prior to an interview on September 8, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a conversation
with an incarcerated person during which the investigator revealed that the incarcerated person might be
involved in another active investigation, and failed to request relevant documentation in possession of the
incarcerated person that may have been relevant to show he was previously interviewed in the other
investigation. Prior to an interview on September 18, 2020, and off-the-record, the investigator engaged in a
conversation with an ofQcer during which he showed the ofQcer diagrams of a prison dining hall and asked the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 319

ofQcer clarifying question about his knowledge of what was depicted in the diagram. After the interview, and
also off-the-record, the ofQcer discussed his overall lack of recollection of the event with the investigator. Prior
to the interviews on October 15, 2020, and also off-the-record, the investigator engaged in conversations with
two other incarcerated persons during which he asked them if they knew the incarcerated person who initiated
the staff complaint allegation. Prior to an interview on October 13, 2020, and again off-the-record, the
investigator engaged in a conversation with yet another incarcerated person during which the investigator told
him that the interview involved the incarcerated person who initiated the staff complaint allegation and
described that incarcerated person as someone who Qles a lot of complaints. After the interview, and also offthe-record, the investigator further engaged in a conversation with the incarcerated person during which he
explained the investigative process and discussed the possibility that the incarcerated person was confused
with another incarcerated person who share the last name.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
On May 19, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month and 27 days before to the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On May 19, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the
department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7, 2020, two
months and 18 days thereafter. The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 19, 2021. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, leaving only one month
and 27 days before to the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

320 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037598-IQ

Incident Date

On April 23, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly denied an incarcerated person with a mental health disability
permission to visit a mental health clinic and also mocked the incarcerated person. The ofQcer, while laughing,
allegedly repeated the incarcerated person's explanation of why he needed mental health treatment. The

April 23, 2020

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

ofQcer allegedly retaliated against the incarcerated person, who had previously Qled a staff misconduct
grievance against the ofQcer, by issuing a rules violation report to the incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not adequately prepare
for all aspects of the inquiry, did not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective
interviewing techniques, did not address all appropriate allegations, and did not include all relevant facts in the
Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach
a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. The OIG recommended the
hiring authority request the OfQce of Internal Affairs conduct further inquiry work. The hiring authority did not
accept the OIG's recommendation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry concerning allegations of staff misconduct until eight months and seven days after it
learned of the allegations. Also, the investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry, did
not ask all relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not address
all appropriate allegations, and did not include all relevant facts in the Qnal inquiry report.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
On January 28, 2021, during an interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, the
investigator did not have a diagram of the housing unit prepared for the incarcerated person to describe where
different events concerning the allegations occurred. Instead, the investigator asked the incarcerated person,
who was disabled, to draw the housing unit, even after the incarcerated person stated he could not draw.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask all relevant questions during an interview of the incarcerated person on January
28, 2021. The incarcerated person alleged that, on a date other than the date of the allegations for which the
incarcerated person was being interviewed, an ofQcer pointed a rike at him without justiQcation, but the
investigator did not ask the incarcerated person any follow-up questions regarding this issue. Also, the
incarcerated person gave the investigator the names of three other incarcerated persons that had been
routinely mistreated in the same housing unit as he had been mistreated but the investigator did not ask any
follow-up questions regarding those individuals or those allegations.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In the OIG's opinion, on January 28, 2021, the investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques. The
investigator did not have a diagram of the housing unit prepared for the incarcerated person to describe or
indicate where misconduct occurred. Instead, the investigator asked the disabled incarcerated person to draw
the housing unit, even after the incarcerated person stated he could not draw. Also, the investigator asked
questions about the allegation of misconduct in this inquiry, and about an additional allegation of misconduct
that occurred on a different date and is addressed in a separate inquiry. However, the investigator used the

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 321

same exhibit for both inquiries during the interview of the incarcerated person on January 28, 2021. The
investigator should have prepared two diagrams of the housing unit for the incarcerated person to mark for
each of the two separate incidents from the two separate inquiries.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry. The investigator
did not follow up on additional allegations of staff misconduct that an incarcerated person presented to the
investigator during an interview of the incarcerated person. Also, one investigator served in the contradictory
roles of both investigator of the disabled incarcerated person and staff assistant to the disabled incarcerated
person during the same interview on January 21, 2021.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not include all the relevant facts in the inquiry report. The investigator
did not include in the inquiry report that a sergeant noted that the ofQcer who allegedly committed misconduct
had received many complaints from incarcerated persons in a short period of time, that a witness remembered
an ofQcer mocking the incarcerated person, that a witness stated the ofQcer used inappropriate humor with the
incarcerated person who submitted the complaint, and that a witness stated the incarcerated person has
signiQcant mental disabilities and that ofQcers' conduct made those mental health issues worse.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address all appropriate allegations as discovered during
the inquiry in the Qnal inquiry report?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not address all appropriate allegations. An incarcerated person
alleged that, on a date independent of the date of the allegations for which the incarcerated person was being
interviewed, an ofQcer pointed a rike at him without justiQcation, but the investigator did not ask the
incarcerated person any follow-up questions regarding this issue. Also, the incarcerated person gave the
investigator the names of three other incarcerated persons whom staff had routinely mistreated as he had been
mitreated, but the investigator did not ask any follow-up questions regarding those individuals or those
allegations. Instead, the investigator said he did not want to talk about other people's problems with staff
misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. On May 14, 2020, the
department learned of the staff misconduct submitted by the incarcerated person. However, the department
did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegation until January 21, 2021, eight months
and seven days thereafter. Also, the investigator completed the Qnal interview on February 19, 2021, but the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 21, 2021, two
months and one day thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

322 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036219-IQ

Incident Date

On April 27, 2020, a control booth ofQcer allegedly closed a cell door on an incarcerated person's wheelchair,
trapping the incarcerated person against the cell door for approximately three to four minutes and damaging
the incarcerated person's wheelchair, after which a second incarcerated person yelled at the ofQcer twice to

April 27, 2020

Allegations
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

open the cell before the ofQcer released the incarcerated person from being trapped in the doorway.

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed potential staff misconduct, but did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs and instead implemented corrective action by providing training to staff members. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective interviewing techniques during
interviews and did not search for and collect relevant evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal
Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
The department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation by
the incarcerated person on May 14, 2020, but did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry until June
16, 2020, one month and two days thereafter. The investigator did not adequately prepare for all aspects of
the inquiry, did not use effective interviewing techniques during interviews, and did not search for all relevant
evidence. The Qnal inquiry report did not include all relevant facts and evidence. The investigator conducted
the Qnal interview on October 6, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete its Qnal inquiry report
until April 19, 2021, six months and 13 days after the last interview. Upon review of the Qnal inquiry report,
the hiring authority presented additional relevant evidence, which the investigator did not discover during the
inquiry.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately prepare for all aspects of the inquiry?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use photographs of staff to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. On October 6, 2020, a different
investigator interviewed the incarcerated person a second time regarding the same allegations, even though
another investigator had previously interviewed the incarcerated person regarding those allegations.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use photographs of staff to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use photographs of staff to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. The investigator did not search the
housing control booth for evidence related to the opening and closing of cell doors.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an interview on June 29, 2020, an investigator did not use photographs of staff to assist an incarcerated
person in identifying individuals involved in the alleged misconduct. On October 6, 2020, a different
investigator interviewed the incarcerated person a second time regarding the same allegations, even though
another investigator had previously interviewed the incarcerated person regarding those allegations.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 323

The Qnal inquiry report did not include relevant evidence that housing control booth ofQcers were using
unauthorized items to open and close cell doors. The hiring authority later presented the evidence in a
memorandum concerning his review of the Qnal inquiry report.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 15, 2021. The OfQce of Internal Affair did not provide the
hiring authority with the inquiry report, exhibits, and recordings until April 19, 2021, only 26 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action. In the OIG’s opinion, this is not sufQcient time for the hiring authority to
review the case materials and then request additional inquiry, if necessary, before the deadline to take
disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegation by the incarcerated person on May 14, 2020, but
did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry until June 16, 2020, one month and two days thereafter.
The deadline to take disciplinary action was May 15, 2021. The investigator completed the last interview on
October 6, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority
until April 19, 2021, six months and 13 days after the last interview and only 26 days before the deadline to
take disciplinary action. In the OIG’s opinion, this is not sufQcient time for the hiring authority to review the case
materials and request additional inquiry, if necessary, before the deadline to take disciplinary action.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

324 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037887-IQ

Incident Date

Between May 1, 2020, through June 8, 2020, ofQcers allegedly spread false information about an incarcerated
person, placing the incarcerated person in danger of being assaulted by other incarcerated persons. On May 19,
2020, the incarcerated person reported the ofQcers' actions to a captain who allegedly threatened to place the

May 01, 2020

Allegations
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person in the administrative segregation unit if the incarcerated person continued to report his
concerns.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. Although the department learned of the alleged
misconduct on June 8, 2020, it did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the alleged misconduct
until January 25, 2021, seven months and 17 days after learning of the misconduct. Also, the investigator did
not include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal inquiry report. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until June 24, 2021, 30 days before the
deadline to take disciplinary action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs failed to attach a recording of an interview of an incarcerated person that an
investigator conducted on June 8, 2021, as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report sent to the hiring authority.

Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was July 24, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 24, 2021, only 30 days prior to the deadline to take
disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs failed to attach a recording of an interview of an incarcerated
person that an investigator conducted on June 8, 2021, as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report sent to the hiring
authority, thus necessitating additional time for the hiring authority to be sent the recording and to review the
recording.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the alleged misconduct on June 8, 2020, but did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry into the alleged misconduct until January 25, 2021, seven months and 17 days after
learning of the misconduct. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete and submit its Qnal inquiry report
until June 24, 2021, 30 days before the deadline to take disciplinary action. The OfQce of Internal Affairs failed
to attach a recording of an interview of an incarcerated person that an investigator conducted on June 8, 2021,
as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report sent to the hiring authority, thus necessitating additional time for the
hiring authority to be sent the recording and to review the recording.
Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs failed to attach a recording of an interview of an incarcerated person an
investigator conducted on June 8, 2021, as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report sent to the OIG.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 325

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035160-IQ

Incident Date

On May 9, 2020, after an incarcerated person cut himself and yelled for help, an ofQcer allegedly delayed 30
minutes in responding and then told the incarcerated person he did not believe the incarcerated person to be
suicidal, even as the incarcerated person slit one of his wrists in the presence of the ofQcer. After an additional

May 09, 2020

Allegations
Neglect of Duty
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Qve minutes, the Qrst ofQcer, two additional ofQcers, and a sergeant allegedly returned to the incarcerated
person's cell, told the incarcerated person to bind his wounds with a shirt, handcuffed him, and transported the
incarcerated person to the triage and treatment area. When the incarcerated person informed the sergeant that
no one responded for 30 minutes, the sergeant allegedly replied, "Thank you, rat."

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask relevant questions, asked
leading questions, and inappropriately played the dual role of investigator and staff assistant for an
incarcerated person. Despite the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision
to refer the allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit for an investigation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct
an inquiry until four months and 18 days after the department learned of the misconduct allegations. The
investigator did not ask all relevant questions and asked leading questions during an interview, and an
investigator inappropriately played the dual role of investigator and also staff assistant for an incarcerated
person. Furthermore, the investigator did not provide a conQdentiality advisement at the end of an interview
with an incarcerated person. The department also did not timely provide requested items of evidentiary value
to the OIG. Finally, the investigator included irrelevant information in the inquiry report.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask logical follow-up questions during an interview on October 6, 2020. The
investigator did not ask the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing staff misconduct
allegations to provide further information concerning the incarcerated person's cellmate, who allegedly
witnessed the incident, nor did the investigator ask logical follow-up questions concerning the description of
the sergeant who allegedly made an unprofessional comment to the incarcerated person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
During an October 6, 2020, interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing staff
misconduct allegations, the investigator asked leading questions. In addition, the investigator failed to properly
identify and note on the record demonstrative evidence provided by the incarcerated person regarding visible
cut marks still appearing on the incarcerated person's right wrist at the time of the interview, until reminded by
the incarcerated person's attorney, and then only noted which wrist had injuries.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
During an October 6, 2020, interview of the incarcerated person who submitted the declaration containing staff
misconduct allegations, one of two investigators acted in a dual role, not only as an investigator, asking
questions during the interview, but also as a staff assistant for the disabled incarcerated person. In addition,
the investigator included in the inquiry report his personal assessment concerning the state of the evidence.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

326 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

On May 19, 2020, the department learned of the misconduct allegations in this case. However, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry until October 6, 2020, four months and 18
days thereafter.

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OIG requested a copy of the interview recordings from the OfQce of Internal Affairs on January 20, 2021,
but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the recordings until February 17, 2021, 28 days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 327

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035240-IQ

Incident Date

On May 13, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly endangered the safety of an incarcerated person by stating to the
incarcerated person over the public announcement system in the presence of other incarcerated persons, "It's
time for you to go talk to Internal Affairs."

May 13, 2020

Allegations
ConQdential
Information
Discourteous
Treatment
Threat/Intimidation
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, did not include all relevant evidence
in the Qnal inquiry report, and did not address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the
poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. However, the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired and, therefore, the OIG agreed that a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs for an investigation was
not necessary.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. Although the department initially assigned an investigator
to conduct the inquiry on June 29, 2020, the department did not complete the inquiry until July 6, 2021, one
year and and seven days later. During the inquiry, the investigator did not ask all relevant questions during
interviews and did not use effective interviewing techniques. An investigator failed to provide the OIG with
notice of his scheduling of interviews with three ofQcers who were subjects of the inquiry, thereby preventing
the OIG from fulQlling its real-time monitoring function. In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator did not
include all relevant evidence and did not address material contradictions. Also, the department assigned three
different investigators to conduct three different inquiries into allegations that were substantially similar in
nature, occurred close in time and within the same housing unit, and were allegedly committed by the same
ofQcer. The investigators failed to consolidate the three inquiries into one inquiry, which would have
demonstrated a repeated course of conduct by the same subject of the three inquiries. Also, the deadline to
take disciplinary action was June 24, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry
report to the hiring authority until July 6, 2021, 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had
expired.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational
questions and made reference to documents not clearly described on the record. In staff interviews the
investigator conducted on June 15, 2021 and on June 16, 2021, the investigator made reference to documents
not clearly described on the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on March 15, 2021, the investigator did not ask relevant foundational
questions and made reference to documents not clearly described on the record. Additionally, during an
interview of another incarcerated person who did not speak English, an investigator served as the translator,
but had direct interaction in another language with the incarcerated person which the investigator did not
capture on the record. In staff interviews the investigator conducted on June 15, 2021 and on June 16, 2021,
the investigator made reference to documents not clearly described on the record.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

328 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator did not include a statement a witness made during an interview on
March 15, 2021, that noted the control booth ofQcer in a particular building had the ability to make an
announcement to those outside the building because the building has a working exterior public announcement
system. In addition, the investigator also omitted a statement from a witness in which she said she heard
ofQcers tell an incarcerated person to to go "talk to the ADA lawyers."

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator address material contradictions in the Qnal inquiry
report?
The investigator did not address the contradiction that a staff witness stated that a control booth ofQcer in a
particular building had the ability to make an announcement to individuals outside the building because the
building had a working exterior public announcement system, whereas a subject of the inquiry stated that, as
the control booth ofQcer in that building, he could not make announcements to individuals outside the building.
Did the investigator complete and submit the Qnal inquiry report before the deadline to take
disciplinary action?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 24, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on July 6, 2021, 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 24, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on July 6, 2021, 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action
had expired.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department initially assigned an investigator
to the inquiry on June 29, 2020, but the department did not complete the inquiry until July 6, 2021, one year
and seven days later. In addition, the department assigned three different investigators to investigate three
different inquiries into allegations that were substantially similar allegations and occurred close in time and in
the same housing unit, and were allegedly committed by the same ofQcer. The investigators failed to
consolidate the three inquiries into one inquiry which would have demonstrated a repeated course of conduct
by the same ofQcer who was the subject of the three inquiries. Finally, the investigator interviewed an ofQcer on
June 23, 2021, failing to realize that the ofQcer had previously been interviewed on March 16, 2021, by a
previous investigator on this same inquiry for the same allegations. The deadline to take disciplinary action
was June 24, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring
authority on July 6, 2021, 12 days after the deadline to take disciplinary action had expired.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 329

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037906-IQ

Incident Date
June 01, 2020

Between June 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated person for
reporting staff misconduct by not allowing the incarcerated person out of his cell to report for his job.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty
Retaliation

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not ask all relevant
questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include all relevant

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

policies, procedures, and documentary evidence in the Qnal inquiry report. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce
of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable
belief of staff misconduct. The OIG recommended that the hiring authority request additional inquiry work. The
hiring authority rejected the OIG's recommendation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. Tthe investigator did not ask all relevant questions
during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not include all relevant policies,
procedures, and documentary evidence in the inquiry report.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator did not ask the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry questions regarding how staff
documented the work of incarcerated persons and also did not ask additional questions about the beneQts
incarcerated persons receive from working as porters. In the OIG's opinion, the investigator should have asked
these questions. Theincarcerated person who made the allegation stated in his interview that, although he was
not allowed out of his cell to perform work, he still received credit for working. He also stated that the records
incorrectly rekected that he did his job, thereby implying that his duties had been completed by other favored
incarcerated persons so they would have the privilege of being out of their cells.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator repeatedly asked the ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiry to “bear with (him),”
apologized for asking questions, revealed that he was not familiar with prison protocols and practices, and
revealed that the incarcerated person who made the allegation“couldn't (provide) an exact date,” but that the
incident likely happened in June or July of 2020.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator did not search for documents or records that could have supported or refuted the incarcerated
person's assertion that he received credit for performing his job as a porter despite not being let out of his cell
to work.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator repeatedly askedthe ofQcer who was the subject of the inquiryto “bear with (him),” apologized
for asking questions, revealed that he was not familiar with prison protocols and practices, and revealed that
the incarcerated person who made the allegation“couldn't (provide) an exact date,” but that the incident likely
happened in June or July of 2020.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant policies and procedures in the Qnal
inquiry report?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator did not identify and include the policies and procedures pertaining to how
the work of incarcerated persons is recorded. The investigator should have identiQed these policies and

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

330 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

procedures during the inquiry and included them as attachments to the Qnal inquiry report.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The investigator did not attempt to locate, or conQrm the existence of, records the incarcerated person claimed
showed that he was given credit for performing work despite not being let out of his cell.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 331

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035291-IQ

Incident Date
June 09, 2020

Between June 9, 2020, and June 16, 2020, on multiple occasions, an ofQcer allegedly failed to wear a face
covering and gloves while preparing food for incarcerated persons in a housing unit.

Allegations

Disposition

Neglect of Duty

The hiring authority reviewed the Qnal inquiry report and determined that he had previously referred the
matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s
determination that there was reason to believe staff misconduct occurred but that another referral was not

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

needed, given the hiring authority's prior referral. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The
hiring authority sustained the allegation that the ofQcer failed to wear a face covering and failed to report an
incarcerated person's injury, but he did not sustain the remaining allegations, and imposed a 5 percent salary
reduction for 12 months. The ofQcer Qled an appeal with the State Personnel Board. As of the date of the
writing of this report, the matter is still pending.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to show an ofQcer a
photograph of the incarcerated person who made the staff misconduct allegation and did not attempt to
refresh an ofQcer's recollection regarding the incarcerated person's identity. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
conducted an inquiry to determine whether there was reasonable belief of misconduct and submitted its report
to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, even though previously, on August 15, 2020, the hiring authority
had already determined that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had referred the matter to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
In an interview of an ofQcer on October 15, 2020, the investigator failed to show the witness a photograph of
the incarcerated person who made the staff misconduct allegation and did not attempt to refresh the ofQcer's
recollection regarding the incarcerated person's identity.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the investigator failed to complete a thorough interview of an ofQcer on October 15, 2020,
when he did not show the witness a photograph of the incarcerated person who made the staff complaint
allegation and did not attempt to refresh his recollection regarding the the incarcerated person's identity. Also,
the OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an inquiry to determine whether there was reasonable belief of
misconduct and submitted its report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021. However, on August 15, 2020,
the hiring authority had previously determined that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had
submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On July 10, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by an incarcerated
person. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7,
2020, 28 days thereafter. On August 15, 2020, the hiring authority independently determined there was a
reasonable belief of misconduct and referred the allegation to the OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit.
Nevertheless, the investigator continued to conduct inquiry work to determine whether a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct existed and submitted the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, seven
months and eight days after the hiring authority had already submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs Central Intake Unit.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

332 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035292-IQ

Incident Date

On June 16, 2020, after an incarcerated person complained to an ofQcer about the ofQcer not wearing a face
covering or gloves while preparing food, the ofQcer allegedly denied the incarcerated person food and
explained that he did not need to wear a face covering. The incarcerated person complained to a sergeant

June 16, 2020

Allegations
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

about the ofQcer denying him food. The ofQcer allegedly handcuffed the incarcerated person from the back
even though the incarcerated person had special handcufQng requirements that prevented the incarcerated
person from being handcuffed from the back, grabbed the incarcerated person from behind, and then slammed
the incarcerated person's shoulder against the frame of a cell door.

Disposition
The hiring authority reviewed the Qnal inquiry report and determined that he had previously referred the
matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s
determination that there was reason to believe staff misconduct occurred but that another referral was not
needed, given the hiring authority's prior referral. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The
hiring authority sustained the allegation that the ofQcer failed to wear a face covering and failed to report an
incarcerated person's injury, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The ofQcer Qled an appeal with the State Personnel Board. As of the date of the writing of this report,
the matter is still pending.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs performed poorly. The department conducted an inquiry to determine
whether there was reasonable belief of misconduct and submitted its inquiry report to the hiring authority on
March 23, 2021. However, on September 15, 2020, the hiring authority had previously determined that there
was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central
Intake Unit.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an inquiry to determine whether there was reasonable belief of
misconduct and submitted its report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021. However, on September 15,
2020, the hiring authority had previously determined that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had
already submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On July 10, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by an incarcerated
person. The department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until August 7,
2020, 28 days thereafter. On September 15, 2020, the hiring authorityindependently determined there was a
reasonable belief of misconduct and referred the allegation to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
Nevertheless, the investigator continued to conduct inquiry work to determine whether a reasonable belief of
staff misconduct existed and submitted the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority onMarch 23, 2021, six
months and eight days after the hiring authority had already submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs Central Intake Unit.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 333

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034831-IQ

Incident Date

On June 17, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly failed to timely release an incarcerated person to receive medication. A
second ofQcer later allegedly lifted the incarcerated person out of his wheelchair and slammed the incarcerated
person to the ground; placed his knee on the incarcerated person's neck and back, which prevented the

June 17, 2020

Allegations
Assault
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Other Failure of
Good Behavior
Neglect of Duty
Retaliation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

incarcerated person from breathing; stabbed the incarcerated person with a sharp object; and told the
incarcerated person, "This is for my homeboy." A third ofQcer allegedly failed to intervene and stop the assault
on the incarcerated person. An ofQcer allegedly submitted a false rules violation report concerning the incident.

Disposition
The hiring authority identiQed staff misconduct and referred the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting interviews and did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews. Despite
the poor quality of the inquiry, the OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decision to refer the allegations to the
OfQce of Internal Affairs Central Intake Unit for an investigation. On May 12, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs'
Central Intake Unit subsequently approved an investigation. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an
investigation. On June 17, 2021, the hiring authority sustained allegations against the ofQcers and served them
with letters of instruction.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not use effective interviewing
techniques when conducting interviews, did not complete all necessary and relevant interviews, did not
provide an advisement at the beginning of each interview and did not provide an admonishment regarding
conQdentiality at the conclusion of each interview. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs completed and
submitted its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority sixty days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary
action.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator failed to utilize a diagram of the housing unit which would have allowed witnesses to provide
a clear description of their location and the location of the involved parties. In addition, the investigator did not
use photographs of the named subjects of the inquiry, which would have allowed the investigator to conQrm
the identities of those involved.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview the subjects of the inquiry named by the incarcerated person as having
committed misconduct.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
The report fails to state that an additional investigator was present during a witness interview conducted on
July 17, 2020. In addition, the writer of the report incorrectly states that he conducted one of the interviews on
July 17, 2020, when in fact, a different investigator conducted that interview.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 18, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
inquiry report to the hiring authority on April 19, 2021, 60 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was June 18, 2021, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

334 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until April 19, 2021, 60 days prior to the deadline to take disciplinary
action. The hiring authority requested an investigation from the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
On May 12, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit approved an investigation. An OfQce of
Internal Affairs special agent subsequently conducted a rushed investigation, resulting in the hiring authority
conducting the investigative and disciplinary conference on the day before the deadline to take disciplinary
action. The OIG did not agree with the hiring authority's decision at the conference to impose corrective action
in the form of letters of instruction rather than disciplinary action, but there was no time remaining for the OIG
to invoke executive review.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 335

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035293-IQ

Incident Date
June 17, 2020

On June 17, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly encouraged incarcerated persons associated with security threat groups
to assault another incarcerated person because the other incarcerated person "was always snitching on staff."

Allegations

Disposition

Discrimination/Hara
ssment

The hiring authority reviewed the Qnal inquiry report and determined that he had previously referred the
matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s
determination that there was reason to believe staff misconduct occurred but that another referral was not

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

needed, given the hiring authority's prior referral. The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an investigation. The
hiring authority sustained the allegation that the ofQcer failed to wear a face covering and failed to report an
incarcerated person's injury, but not the remaining allegations, and imposed a 5 percent salary reduction for 12
months. The ofQcer Qled an appeal with the State Personnel Board. As of the date of the writing of this report,
the matter is still pending.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs performed poorly conducted the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs
conducted an inquiry for the hiring authority to determine whether there was reasonable belief of misconduct
and submitted its report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021. However, on September 15, 2020, the
hiring authority had previously determined that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had already
submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator adequately confer with the OIG upon case initiation and
prior to Qnalizing the inquiry plan?
The investigator did not confer with the OIG to discuss the inquiry plan.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs conducted an inquiry to determine whether there was reasonable belief of
misconduct and submitted its report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021. However, on September 15,
2020, the hiring authority had previously determined that there was a reasonable belief of misconduct and had
submitted the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On July 10, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by an incarcerated
person. On August 7, 2020, the department assigned an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations
to determine whether there was a reasonable belief of misconduct. The hiring authority independently
determined that there was reasonable belief misconduct occurred and, on September 15, 2020, referred the
allegations to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake Unit. Nevertheless, the investigator continued to
conduct inquiry work to determine whether reasonable belief of staff misconduct existed and the OfQce of
Internal Affairs submitted the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on March 23, 2021, six months eight
days after the hiring authority had already submitted a referral to the OfQce of Internal Affairs' Central Intake
Unit.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

336 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0035241-IQ

Incident Date

On June 25, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly told an incarcerated person, "I know you are snitching. Make sure you
spell my name right." A second ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person, "That's if you know how to spell."
The comments caused the incarcerated person to fear for his safety.

June 25, 2020

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment
Discrimination/Hara
ssment
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly handled the inquiry. The investigator did not did not ask all relevant questions
during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and did not provide an admonishment
concerning conQdentiality at the end of each interview. On June 29, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned
an investigator to conduct an inquiry, but did not complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring
authority until May 21, 2021, 10 months and 22 days later.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
In an interview of an incarcerated person on March 16, 2021 the investigator made reference to documents not
clearly described on the record. Also, investigators conducted interviews on March 16, 2021 in a facility chapel,
which was not a conQdential location. Multiple incarcerated persons walked into the chapel during an
interview, which interrupted the interview. As the interviews were held in that particular location, other
incarcerated persons were able to identify those incarcerated persons whom the investigator was interviewing
as part of a conQdential inquiry. The chapel also had poor acoustics, which made it difQcult to hear and
understand the witnesses.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On June 29, 2020, the OfQce of Internal Affairs assigned an investigator to conduct the inquiry, but did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report and submit it to the hiring authority until May 21, 2021, 10 months and 22
days later.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 337

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034832-IQ

Incident Date

On June 26, 2020, an unknown staff member allegedly placed nail clippers and a note reading, "Kill yourself"
under the cell door of an incarcerated person, after which the incarcerated person swallowed the nail clippers.
On July 15, 2020, an unknown staff member placed a handwritten note containing a threat and derogatory

June 26, 2020

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Satisfactory

Incident Summary

references to the incarcerated person under the cell door of the incarcerated person.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The
OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on September 21, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until May 21, 2021, eight months after the last interview.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

338 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034833-IQ

Incident Date

On June 29, 2020, after an incarcerated person allegedly assaulted ofQcers, an ofQcer allegedly retaliated by
issuing a false rules violation report against the incarcerated person. The ofQcer also allegedly failed to conduct
a urinalysis test of the incarcerated person.

June 29, 2020

Allegations
Dishonesty
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not complete all
necessary and relevant interviews and did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other
forensic evidence. Due to the poor quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a
conclusion regarding whether there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct. The OIG recommended to the
hiring authority that he request additional inquiry work from the OfQce of Internal Affairs. The hiring authority
rejected the OIG's recommendation.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator did not complete all necessary and
relevant interviews and did not properly search for and collect relevant documentary and other forensic
evidence. In addition, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not Qnalize its report and submit it to the hiring authority
until seven months and 18 days after the investigator completed the Qnal interview in the case.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview the ofQcer who authored the rules violation report that set forth an
allegation that the incarcerated person possessed alcohol. In addition, the investigator did not interview a
second escort ofQcer and all medical staff who had contact with the incarcerated person at the time of the
incident to determine whether those individuals smelled an odor of alcohol emitting from the incarcerated
person.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator properly search for and collect relevant documentary
and other forensic evidence?
The investigator failed to submit a request for departmental forensic investigators to retrieve and preserve data
as to when the alleged false rules violation report against the incarcerated person was deleted from the
departmental computer database and to determine the identity of the person who deleted the documents.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not interview the ofQcer who authored the rules violation report that set forth an
allegation that the incarcerated person possessed alcohol. In addition, the investigator did not interview a
second escort ofQcer and all medical staff who had contact with the incarcerated person at the time of the
incident to determine whether those individuals smelled an odor of alcohol emitting from the incarcerated
person.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on September 3, 2020, but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not
complete its Qnal inquiry report until April 21, 2021, seven months and 18 days after the last interview.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 339

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037694-IQ

Incident Date

On July 14, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly failed to protect the conQdentiality of an incarcerated person who
reported that his cellmate, a second incarcerated person, assaulted him. The ofQcer allegedly asked the
incarcerated person whether he agreed to continue to remain in a cell with the second incarcerated person.

July 14, 2020

Allegations
ConQdential
Information
Discourteous
Treatment
Neglect of Duty

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Within the hearing of other incarcerated persons, the ofQcer allegedly asked the incarcerated person, "So
you’re going to snitch on him?” Three other ofQcers allegedly threatened to place the incarcerated person in the
administrative segregation unit if he reported the assault to a sergeant. The ofQcers also allegedly advised the
incarcerated person to hide his injuries when a nurse examined him and informed him that the prison staff were
aware of the second's incarcerated person's use of illegal drugs and assaultive behavior.

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. Although the department learned of the alleged staff
misconduct on September 21, 2020, it did not assign an investigator to conduct the inquiry into the allegations
until January 6, 2021, three months and 16 days thereafter. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not complete
the inquiry for an additional six months from the time the department assigned an investigator. Lastly, the
investigator did not ask relevant questions during interviews, did not use effective interviewing techniques, and
did not provide conQdentiality advisements to witnesses at the conclusion of multiple interviews.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator ask all relevant questions during interviews?
The investigator failed to ask all relevant questions during interviews conducted on February 4, 2021, and on
June 24, 2021. The investigator did not ask the witness to identify relevant documents on the record.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator use effective interviewing techniques when conducting
interviews?
The investigator did not identify on the record exhibits shown to four separate witnesses during interviews
conducted on February 4, 2021. The investigator did not ask foundational questions about a relevant document
during an interview conducted on June 24, 2021.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
In the OIG's opinion, the department did not handle the case with due diligence. The department learned of the
staff misconduct allegations on September 21, 2020. However, it did not assign an investigator to conduct an
inquiry into the allegations until January 6, 2021, three months and 16 days after learning of the misconduct.
Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs took an additional six months to complete the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal
Affairs began its inquiry on January 6, 2021, but did not complete it until July 6, 2021, six months thereafter.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
The department learned of the staff misconduct allegations for this case on September 21, 2020. However, it
did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegations until January 6, 2021, three months
and 16 days after learning of the misconduct. Also, the OfQce of Internal Affairs took an additional six months
to complete the inquiry. The OfQce of Internal Affairs began its inquiry on January 6, 2021, but did not
complete it until July 6, 2021, six months thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

340 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037629-IQ

Incident Date

On July 20, 2020, two OfQce of Internal Affairs lieutenants allegedly made statements to an incarcerated
person that indicated they were not neutral investigators and that they represented the department during the
inquiry.

July 20, 2020

Allegations

Incident Summary

Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify potential staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority’s decisions.

Satisfactory

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 341

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037896-IQ

Incident Date

On July 20, 2020, four ofQcers allegedly arranged for three incarcerated persons to enter a building in which a
fourth incarcerated person lived to threaten and intimidate the fourth incarcerated person for reporting staff
misconduct.

July 20, 2020

Allegations

Incident Summary

Threat/Intimidation

Disposition

Overall Rating

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Poor

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. The department did not assign an investigator to
conduct an inquiry until six months and two days after learning of the staff misconduct allegation and the
investigator did not admonish witnesses concerning the conQdentiality of interviews. Also, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority until one month and 27 days prior
to the deadline to take disciplinary action.
Questions
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The deadline to take disciplinary action was July 25, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs submitted its
Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on May 28, 2021, only one month and 27 days prior to the deadline
to take disciplinary action.

In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?
On July 25, 2020, the department learned of the staff misconduct allegation submitted by the incarcerated
person. However, the department did not assign an investigator to conduct an inquiry into the allegation until
January 27, 2021, six months and two days thereafter.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

342 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

21-0037904-IQ

Incident Date

On July 20, 2020, an OfQce of Internal Affairs lieutenant allegedly intimidated an incarcerated person during an
interview by standing over the incarcerated person as the incarcerated person sat during and participated in an
interview.

July 20, 2020

Allegations
Threat/Intimidation

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

Disposition
A warden reviewed the case, did not identify staff misconduct, and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of
Internal Affairs. However, the warden did not supervise the lieutenant and was not the lieutenant's hiring
authority. The OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to include all
relevant evidence in the Qnal inquiry report and failed to conduct all relevant interviews. Due to the poor
quality of the OfQce of Internal Affairs' inquiry work, the OIG did not reach a conclusion regarding whether
there was a reasonable belief of staff misconduct.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the OfQce of Internal Affairs poorly conducted the inquiry. The investigator failed to conduct all
relevant interviews and did not include all relevant evidence in the Qnal inquiry report. Additionally, the OfQce
of Internal Affairs submitted the inquiry report to the incorrect hiring authority.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator complete all necessary and relevant interviews?
The investigator did not interview the lieutenant who was the subject of the inquiry, but the investigator
should have done so, rather than simply accept a memorandum authored by the lieutenant concerning the
incident.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not include a relevant interview recording as an exhibit to the Qnal inquiry report and the
OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit its Qnal inquiry report to to the appropriate hiring authority.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The Qnal inquiry report did not include as an exhibit a copy of the recorded July 20, 2020, interview conducted
by the OfQce of Internal Affairs lieutenant of the incarcerated person who submitted the allegation. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs lieutenant's conduct during that interview was the basis of the staff misconduct allegation.
Did the investigator complete the inquiry with sufQcient time for the hiring authority to submit a
request for additional inquiry if necessary?
The investigator completed the inquiry with sufQcient time for a hiring authority to submit a request for
additional inquiry. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not submit the inquiry to the lieutenant's hiring
authority, but instead submitted it to a prison warden, who was not the lieutenant's hiring authority.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 343

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0034906-IQ

Incident Date

On September 4, 2020, a nurse allegedly engaged in a verbal argument with an incarcerated person while the
incarcerated person waited to receive medication. The argument caused the incarcerated person to return to his
cell without obtaining the medication. An ofQcer allegedly told the incarcerated person, "I don't have to do

September 04,
2020

Allegations
Discourteous
Treatment

Overall Rating
Poor

Incident Summary

what you want me to do. I do what I want to do." The ofQcer then allegedly engaged in a verbal argument with
the incarcerated person and denied the incarcerated person's request to speak to a sergeant by stating, "You're
not gonna snitch on me like you snitched on the ofQcers at [a previous prison]. I know you and [a second
incarcerated person's name] are rats." The ofQcer allegedly again denied a second request by the incarcerated
person to speak to a sergeant. After the incarcerated person stated that he was going to cover his cell
windows, the ofQcer allegedly responded by saying, "Yeah, well if you do, I'll be the Qrst one to come in your
cell to [expletive] you up. [Expletive]."

Disposition
The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer matter to the OfQce of Internal Affairs.
The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Overall Assessment
Overall, the department poorly conducted the inquiry. On June 16, 2021, the OfQce of Internal Affairs prepared
and submitted a Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority that did not include all relevant facts and
documentary evidence. After the OIG informed the hiring authority of the omissions, the OfQce of Internal
Affairs later provided the missing evidence to the hiring authority, but not until July 15, 2021, 29 days later.
Questions
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator thoroughly and appropriately conduct the inquiry?
The investigator did not conduct the inquiry thoroughly and appropriately. On June 16, 2021, the OfQce of
Internal Affairs prepared and submitted a Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority that did not include all
relevant facts and documentary evidence. After the OIG informed the hiring authority of the omissions in the
Qnal inquiry report, the OfQce of Internal Affairs subsequently provided the missing evidence to the hiring
authority, but not until July 15, 2021, 29 days later.

In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator prepare a Qnal inquiry report that included all relevant
facts and evidence?
In the Qnal inquiry report, the investigator incorrectly identiQed multiple participants in an interview of the
incarcerated person who made the allegations, including the investigator who conducted the interview and
two attorneys who attended telephonically. On December 10, 2020, the investigator interviewed an
incarcerated person regarding the allegations but the OfQce of Internal Affairs did not include a synopsis of the
interview in the Qnal inquiry report and did not include the recording of the interview as an exhibit. The OfQce
of Internal Affairs submitted the Qnal inquiry report to the hiring authority on June 16, 2021. The OfQce of
Internal Affairs did not provide a supplemental report with a synopsis of the interview, along with the
interview recording, to the hiring authority and to the OIG until July 15, 2021, 29 days later, and only after the
OIG pointed out the missing evidence to the hiring authority.
In the OIG's opinion, did the investigator include all relevant documentary evidence in the Qnal
inquiry report?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs failed to include in its Qnal inquiry report as an exhibit the recording of an
interview of an incarcerated person. The OIG brought this omission to the attention of the hiring authority, who
requested and reviewed the recording, but the failure caused a delay in the hiring authority's ability to review
all the evidence until July 15, 2021.
In the OIG's opinion, did the department handle the case with due diligence?

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

344 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

The investigator conducted the Qnal interview on February 18, 2021. However, the OfQce of Internal Affairs did
not complete the Qnal inquiry report until June 16, 2021, three months and 29 days after the last interview.

Did the department timely transmit documents or items of evidentiary value to the OIG?
The OfQce of Internal Affairs provided its Qnal inquiry report to the OIG on June 16, 2021, but the report did not
contain as an exhibit a recording of an interview. The OfQce of Internal Affairs did not provide the missing
interview recording to the OIG until July 15, 2021.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 345

Case Type

OIG Case Number

Departmental
Inquiry

20-0036216-IQ

Incident Date

On September 18, 2020, an ofQcer allegedly called an incarcerated person a "rat."

September 18,
2020

Disposition

Incident Summary

Allegations

The hiring authority did not identify staff misconduct and did not refer the matter to the OfQce of Internal
Affairs. The OIG agreed with the hiring authority's decisions.

Discrimination/Hara
ssment

Overall Assessment

Overall Rating

Overall, the department conducted the inquiry in a satisfactory manner.

Satisfactory

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

346 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 347

Response by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to This Report
DocuSign Envelope ID: E258BA88-D60D-4B44-8E5F-14222FFD2440
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001

February 24, 2022
Ms. Amarik K. Singh
Office of the Inspector General
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, CA 95827
Dear Ms. Singh:
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) has reviewed the
draft entitled The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Processing of
Disabled Incarcerated Persons’ Allegations of Staff Misconduct at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility.
The Department takes every allegation of employee misconduct very seriously, and we are
committed to ensuring all allegations are properly and fairly reviewed, whether at the
Department or at the local level. The Department appreciates the Office of the Inspector
General’s (OIG) review, and recognizes the report provides valuable feedback that we will
consider as we continue to improve how allegations of staff misconduct are evaluated.
The allegations of staff misconduct toward incarcerated people with a disability at Richard J.
Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) were brought to the Department’s attention via declarations
facilitated by the Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld (RBGG) law firm. The Department formed an
internal task force to review the allegations. At that time, the Department did not have a
standardized process for conducting inquiries into allegations brought forward outside of the
grievance process, and in hindsight, we recognize there were several shortcomings with that
approach. However, since the time that this review was conducted, the Department has taken
aggressive steps and made significant changes to address issues raised in this report with the
goals of ensuring timely responses, increasing accountability, and instilling greater fidelity and
trust of our investigations process.
Specifically, in January 2022, the Department implemented emergency regulations to
standardize the process for addressing allegations of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated
person or parolee statewide. These regulations represent a large-scale restructuring of the
process for handling staff misconduct allegations, as a result in part of the feedback that the OIG
has provided in this and prior reports. The changes include:


Expanding the definition of “staff misconduct” to include all behavior that results in a
violation of law, regulation, policy, procedure, or actions contrary to an ethical or
professional standard.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

348 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: E258BA88-D60D-4B44-8E5F-14222FFD2440

Amarik K. Singh, Office of the Inspector General
Page 2












Eliminating the “reasonable belief” standard as a requirement for an allegation of staff
misconduct toward an incarcerated person or parolee that will be routed to the OIA for
investigation. This change will increase the number of allegations going to OIA because
it removes the requirement that an incarcerated person or parolee must provide evidence
of misconduct at the time the allegation is submitted.
Establishing a robust, independent process for centralized screening of grievances from
incarcerated persons and parolees so all grievances received at the institution on a form
602-1 are routed to the Centralized Screening Team (CST) to determine if the grievance
includes allegations of staff misconduct. This process will be expanded to allegations of
staff misconduct toward incarcerated persons or parolees received outside the grievance
process by July 1, 2023.
Enabling CST staff to make decisions regarding the proper assignment for investigation or
inquiry into allegations of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated person or parolee.
Creating an Allegation Decision Index (ADI) to reduce subjectivity and increase
consistency in decisions made by the CST. The ADI provides clarity in the proper
assignment of a claim to OIA for an investigation or to a Locally Designated
Investigator (LDI) for an allegation inquiry. As an example, all complaints involving staff
use of force regardless of injury and staff sexual misconduct shall be assigned to OIA for
investigation.
Enhanced training by the OIA for LDIs who complete inquiries at the local level.
Requiring the LDI to transfer an inquiry to OIA when, during the course of their inquiry,
the LDI receives information about misconduct listed on the ADI.
Mandating OIA managers review and approve inquiry reports completed by LDIs to
ensure the report is complete and thorough before being reviewed by the hiring authority
for determination.
Creating a statewide tracking system that will capture all allegations of staff misconduct
from all sources as well as improve the overall timeliness of the investigative process. This
tracking system will allow data filtering to identify areas of concern or repeated
allegations of a same or similar nature. Additionally, it will be used by Department
managers to ensure inquiries and investigations are completed timely and any
subsequent corrective or disciplinary action imposed within the applicable statute of
limitations.

In addition, the Governor’s proposed 2022-23 Budget would add 175 positions and would
allocate over $34 million dollars annually to support these progressive changes. Some of these
changes have already been implemented with the remaining changes to be phased in by
July 2023, subject to funding approval. The first institutions identified to begin the
implementation of these changes include RJD, as well as the California Institution for Women,
California State Prison, Corcoran, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison,
Corcoran, California State Prison Los Angeles County, and Kern Valley State Prison.

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021 | 349

DocuSign Envelope ID: E258BA88-D60D-4B44-8E5F-14222FFD2440

Amarik K. Singh, Office of the Inspector General
Page 3
Along with transforming the staff misconduct process, the Department took additional steps at
RJD since the allegations came to light that are designed to curb misconduct and protect the
integrity of the investigative process. These changes include installing more than a thousand
video cameras throughout the institution and requiring body worn cameras for all of the nearly
800 officers and Sergeants who interact with the incarcerated population. Additional sergeants
have also been hired to assist with supervision of officers. Extra training including discussion of
reporting requirements, de-escalation techniques, whistleblower protections, non-retaliation
expectations, and treatment of incarcerated people with disabilities has been provided for all
custody, mental health, and medical staff who interact with incarcerated people with disabilities.
Finally, there have been some critical staffing changes that we believe will positively impact
implementation of these changes going forward. RJD welcomed new acting Warden Raymond
Madden last year. Warden Madden has over six years of experience as Warden at Centinela
State Prison and is committed to accountability and process improvements. OIA hired new
Deputy Director David Chriss. Deputy Director Chriss brings years of investigative expertise from
outside of the Department and has been a leader in the development of improvements to the
staff misconduct process.
We share the concerns raised by the OIG in this report and previous reports related to allegations
of staff misconduct toward incarcerated persons or parolees, and we appreciate the feedback
received from the OIG as well as internal and other external stakeholders in developing a
completely restructured process aimed at addressing these concerns. We remain committed to
working to improve our new process in this regard, and we value the observations of the OIG as
they continue to monitor this process.
If you have further questions, please contact me at (916) 323-6001.
Sincerely,

Q

OocuSig ned by:

~~ lO<V.t.
D7A487A8AEC64C4 ...

KATHLEEN ALLISON
Secretary

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

350 | Monitoring RJD, August 2020 – July 2021

(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)

Office of the Inspector General, State of California

Return to Contents

Special Report
The California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Processing
of Disabled Incarcerated Persons’
Staff Misconduct Allegations
at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

OFFICE of the
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General

STATE of CALIFORNIA
March 2022

OIG