The Orange County Grand Jury is pushing for an independent audit of the Sheriff’s Department to ensure that evidence is not continuing to be mishandled by deputies.
The
grand jury’s report, released this week, delves into the much-publicized
evidence mishandling scandal, where Orange County sheriff’s deputies were found
to have booked evidence late or failed to book evidence at all and subsequently
lied about it in reports.
“Ultimately,
the only way to know if the evidence booking issue has been resolved is through
an impartial third-party verification,” the report says. “An independent audit
of department reports submitted after March 2018 would confirm that the new
policies and procedures are being followed.”
The
evidence mishandling scandal was brought to light in 2019.
The
Sheriff’s Department had already conducted two audits of its deputies by that
time. The department found that between 2016 and 2018, 414 deputies had booked
evidence 31 days or more after it was seized and 1,135 deputies had booked
evidence six to 10 days after it was seized, according to a court motion.
Department policy requires evidence to be booked at the end of a shift.
Dist.
Atty. Todd Spitzer’s office then conducted a third audit of the evidence
mishandling, which resulted in reduced or dropped charges in 67 cases involving
battery, assault and drug possession, among other charges.
Three
deputies have been charged with evidence-mishandling crimes.
The
grand jury also recommends that the Sheriff’s Department issue a directive
within 90 days requiring lieutenants to regularly perform “spot checks” to
ensure that evidence is being booked on time.
The
grand jury noted that the Sheriff’s Department’s second audit report included a
recommendation to conduct monthly spot checks. However, the department never
formally adopted the protocol.
“There
does not appear to be a policy holding management above the sergeant level
accountable for evidence booking and reporting,” the report says.
The
grand jury said that much of the evidence mishandling is owed to a lack of
leadership and the misplaced priorities of deputies. The report also says that
supervisors were not held accountable because the department lacked proper
oversight.
“Deputies
were busy making arrests and placed a higher value on arrests than booking
evidence,” the report says.
The
grand jury also recommends that new Sheriff’s Department trainees be given a
tour of the department’s Property Evidence Central Booking Facility, which used
to be a part of the training of new recruits but isn’t anymore.
“The
Grand Jury toured this facility and is of the opinion that the knowledge gained
from such a tour would be beneficial to new trainees in emphasizing the
importance of proper collection and processing of physical evidence,” the
report says.
When
reached for comment, Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman Carrie Braun provided an
emailed statement but also said the department will formally respond to the
grand jury, which the department has 90 days to do.
“The Grand Jury commended OCSD for taking immediate action once evidence booking issues surfaced, initiating policy changes, and holding employees accountable through both discipline and referral to the D.A. for prosecution,” Braun said in the statement. “The Orange County Sheriff’s Department is reviewing the Grand Jury’s recommendations and will implement any that we believe will strengthen our current procedures.”
In
her response, Braun noted the work of the Office of Independent Review, which
oversees the Sheriff’s Department, district attorney’s office, public defenders
office, probation department and Social Services Agency.
“With
regard to the recommendation for a third party audit on evidence booked
post-March 2018, it is important to note that the review of evidence is part of
the work plan for the Office of Independent Review. We welcome OIR’s review of
our evidence systems and believe it will confirm the effectiveness of the
controls we have put in place.
“The
test of an organization’s strength is how it responds when problems or
shortfalls come to light. The Grand Jury Report confirms that the department
took swift action to correct the evidence issue.”
The
grand jury report says that district attorney staffers are still concerned
about whether the Sheriff’s Department is conducting random audits to ensure
that there isn’t any further mishandling of evidence.
Albert
Lamonte of Huntington Beach looks on as his son, Marcel, 2, places a paper
pinwheel among a makeshift memorial for 6-year-old Aiden Leos, of Costa Mesa,
who was fatally shot during a road rage incident on the 55 Freeway in Orange
last week. A $150,000 award is being offered for information leading to the
arrest of those responsible for the boys' death.
In
response to a request for comment, D.A. spokeswoman Kimberly Edds said the
district attorney’s office has already asked the Office of Independent Review
to review the evidence booking issues.
O.C.
Public Defender Martin Schwarz declined to comment for the story.
The
grand jury failed to highlight some important aspects of the scandal. The
report commends the sheriff’s department’s response to the discovery of the
evidence mishandling but does not mention that the department covered up the
scandal until O.C. Register reporter Tony Saavedra broke the story in November
2019.
Orange
County Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders, who has revealed details about
the evidence mishandling scandal in court filings, said in a past interview
that the situation is “far from a success story of a rapid response addressing
systematic misconduct.”
“We
weren’t going to learn any of this, and there certainly was no intent to inform
us about the massive scope of false reporting and failures to book evidence,”
Sanders said in January. “We obtained the audit through a source and it then
became public, more than a year after the massive scope of the problem was
understood by the [Sheriff’s Department]. That’s why action was taken. And the
real work is just beginning.”
The
grand jury report also noted the first 17 deputies referred for criminal
prosecution for evidence mishandling and filing false reports. However, it did
not mention that the district attorney’s office initially chose to not
prosecute any of the 17 deputies. Spitzer later reopened the cases.
At
least 16 deputies have been added to the county’s Brady notification list,
which is a record that district attorney’s offices are supposed to update with
the names of law enforcement personnel who have records of dishonesty,
criminality and other issues that could affect their credibility as a witness.
Sanders said in a past interview that he believes hundreds more deputies should
be added to the Brady list.
Los
Angeles Times
By BEN BRAZIL
May 27, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment