A federal jury took just 20 minutes to reach a verdict in favor of Deputies Mark Kent and Adam Moore in a case in which they were accused of using excessive force on an jail inmate on February 28, 2001.  The case was on trial for more than three weeks before U.S. District Court Judge Alicemarie Stotler.

For the Orange County Register's story on the verdict click here.

For the Register's story on the beginning of the trial click here.

Dear Mr. Nichols:

I am in receipt of your letter of February 19, 2008 regarding the proposal to employ a new class of correctional employee in the Orange County Jail system.  I fully understand the concerns as stated and want to assure you that they will be addressed.  I believe the involvement of AOCDS and other impacted unions will greatly assist the County and the Sheriff’s Department with the successful resolution of current and future correctional staffing issues. 

To reiterate what was said during our February 7, 2008 meeting with the entire AOCDS Board of Directors, the Sheriff’s Department is facing tremendous budgetary difficulties that are projected to last for several years.  Additionally, operating expenses will spike with the projected expansion of the James A Musick Facility, a necessary undertaking to ensure we can incarcerate criminals who prey upon the good residents of our communities.  The continuing cost of operating our current jails extensively with Deputy Sheriffs, and the construction and operating expenses of future planned jail expansion, place an unbearable fiscal burden upon the taxpayers of Orange County.  While acting as Sheriff, it is my responsibility to ensure the Sheriff’s Department engages in a continuing, comprehensive self-evaluation of how we operate our jails to ensure best practices are being applied and efficiencies maximized.  Realized fiscal savings by introducing a non-sworn correctional employee classification will allow for the sustained safe operation of the jails without having to cut other critical programs and public safety services.  Exploring the use of non-sworn correctional employees in our jails is representative of my duty to explore various options to operate the Department more efficiently without diminishing the quality or quantity of law enforcement services provided to the community.

I have considered the employment of non-sworn correctional personnel in our jails as a primary means of cutting expenses, with preliminary projections suggesting that about $24 to 34 million in annual savings will be realized in existing jail facilities alone.  Such an initiative is also consistent with industry standards.  The vast majority of law enforcement agencies in Southern California employ correctional personnel of varying classifications to work in county or city jails.  The savings realized will allow us to maintain and expand existing patrol services, gang and drug suppression efforts, terrorism early warning, child and sexual predator interdiction, forensics and DNA efforts, and a host of other public safety programs and projects.   

As you are aware, employing Deputy Sheriffs in our jails under the current system will be difficult to sustain with the build out of the Musick Facility.  Currently, Deputies attend a rigorous paid six-month patrol-oriented basic academy and then work for approximately seven or eight years in a jail and/or court facility before being eligible for a patrol assignment.  This operational fact is far from optimal.  The time delay for Deputies to rotate to patrol assignments with the Musick expansion may rise to 15 years, an unacceptable business practice and poor public policy.

The proposal to utilize a non-sworn correctional personnel class is in its infancy stages and no specific plan or model has been decided upon.  Much research and consideration still needs to be undertaken. 

I would like to reiterate my invitation for you and the AOCDS members to work with us collaboratively in this endeavor.  By working together, we can develop a workable proposal that meets budgetary realities while upholding the tradition of professionalism and safety in our jails.

Sincerely,

Jack Anderson
Assistant Sheriff
Acting as Sheriff-Coroner

From the Sunday, February 3 edition of the Orange County Register:

The public's confidence in their law enforcement services is an absolute necessity. Every day, members of the Orange County Sheriff's Department interact with tens of thousands of our residents and visitors either on the streets, or in our jails. By and large, these interactions are professional, and the communities we serve consistently voice their confidence and appreciation. But more can be done to ensure that the law enforcement community is adjusting to contemporary cultural shifts and the desire of the public to look inside our operations.

For many years the call for openness and transparency in government and its agents has been voiced from kitchen tables and town halls all the way to our nation's capital. This desire has impacted law enforcement in a positive way. The public not only wants to know what we do each day, but they want to see that we're fulfilling our duties in an ethical and responsible manner.

The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will consider an ordinance establishing an Office of Independent Review for the Sheriff's Department. We believe the ordinance will move forward with the full support of the board, and we look forward to working with the county to provide an additional resource for oversight and openness for the people we serve.

I have been a longtime advocate of transparency. As an example, in 1992, following the Rodney King incident, as a deputy serving in patrol I was charged with conducting research on the feasibility of installing video cameras in sheriff's patrol cars. After I identified several vendors and oversaw a pilot program, the department installed video cameras in every patrol car.

Today, over 15 years later, every patrol car still carries a camera, and every patrol deputy wears a wireless microphone. The Sheriff's Department is currently upgrading the technology into the digital arena.

Since its inception, the presence of these video cameras led to a large drop in the number of internal-affairs investigations related to patrol operations. With every incident being recorded, the county and the department have saved untold tens of millions of dollars in legal claims because these videos have vindicated our deputies many times over. Patrol video systems also significantly cut down on the criminal courts' trial load as the system provides irrefutable evidence, leading to more defendants concluding it is more advantageous to engage in plea bargaining.

Such transparency also gives us the opportunity to continually evaluate our policies and guidelines, improve our training and, when necessary, take appropriate corrective measures.

The patrol video cameras were initially met with much ambivalence. However, these cameras and the incidents they record have served as both a great tool and an extraordinary defense for the department and the county. We are proud of the men and women of the Sheriff's Department and the quality professional work they do, and we have no hesitation of recording their activities.

Such transparency has been one of our greatest resources, and we must be willing to continue to invest in opportunities for openness, regardless of any temporary apprehension such changes may bring about.

...in which we continue to repeat ourselves...

On her blog, Peggy Lowe writes:

"Assistant Sheriff Dan Martini told the board that the Office of Independent Review in Los Angeles County, which OC is using as a model, only works because it was established by the sheriff and has a good working relationship with that department. Martini didn’t have to say it, but Carona has opposed this idea, saying it’s not needed with so many other oversight entities in place."

The only problem is that Sheriff Carona NEVER opposed the idea of an Office of Independent Review (OIR).

Sheriff Carona and the Command Staff NEVER opposed the idea of civilian review. We've argued this many times, and we can point, as we have in the past, to the PUBLIC RECORD. The Sheriff has long been a proponent of oversight for all arms of government, including the Board of Supervisors.  Here's the video of the Sheriff's comments to the board when the proposal was first discussed. And here's what the Sheriff said at the beginning of his presentation:

"Let me agree with everything that Supervisor Moorlach said. He and I have had this discussion about oversight within the county long before I was an elected official and when he was trying to become an elected official. It was a lack of oversight that I believed caused the largest municipal bankruptcy this nation has ever seen. So I have been an advocate for oversight for quite awhile."

What the Sheriff was opposed to was Supervisor Moorlach's original ill conceived proposal, which was hatched in secret and designed to take advantage of the media attention surrounding the death of inmate John Chamberlain.

Furthermore, the Sheriff and the Command Staff weren't alone in their opposition to Moorlach's original civilian review plan. The District Attorney, Sheriff's Community Coalition, the Orange County Human Relations Commission and the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriffs Association all opposed the original plan because they all recognized that it was flawed, likely illegal and doomed to failure. Even Steven Greenhut, who never misses an opportunity to attack law enforcement, recognized that the original proposal would. He writes:

"Although civilian oversight is a solid idea, given that the public should have a right to be part of investigations into the actions of government agents with life-and-death power over them, such oversight panels have been severely limited following the California Supreme Court's 2006 Copley decision, which curtailed the release of law-enforcement disciplinary records during administrative hearings.

[...]

As a result, Orange County decided to pursue a model similar to the one successfully used in Los Angeles County."

A few days ago Peggy also wrote:

"But Moorlach's plan was immediately opposed by Sheriff Mike Carona and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who argued that there are already several existing checks in place and that a new panel would undermine law enforcement."

This interpretation is a bit closer to the public record of the Sheriff's comments. Yes, it's true, law enforcement oversight exists in many forms, but the heart of the matter is that the Sheriff and the Command Staff and the District Attorney, Sheriff's Community Coalition, the Orange County Human Relations Commission and the Orange County Chiefs and Sheriffs Association all opposed the original plan because it wouldn't have made good public policy. Moorlach failed to bring knowledgeable individuals to the table when drafting his first scheme.

In fact, Supervisor Moorlach believes there is a need for greater transparency in county government, however, based on what was said during the discussion in May, it appears that Supervisor Moorlach's original proposal for law enforcement oversight was created in secret, with little discussion or participation from members of the Board and the law enforcement officials his proposal would effect. Again, the Sheriff discussed this at the hearing in May:

"It's not the fact that I'm opposed to civilian oversight. I believe the proposal that has come forward, as you've already mentioned, was not vetted well through our department. In fact, there was no discussion and I don't believe we have had a chance to weigh in with the District Attorney and Probation to offer significant alternatives. It's an either or scenario," said the Sheriff.

The Sheriff's opposition (as well as all others) was not directed toward law enforcement oversight. This opposition was directed toward Moorlach's original proposal and the way this scheme was hatched. This is a matter of public record.

Additionally, for the record, here is a history of our discussion of law enforcement oversight. We know the register reads this blog so we know they're aware of our position on this matter.

The public record is clear but few members of the public will review the record itself. Most will rely on the media to interpret what took place and will, therefore, be sadly misinformed.

Today, the Board of Supervisors will be hosting a board workshop and public forum on the Office of Independent Review (OIR), the still evolving oversight model. The workshop is scheduled to begin at 1:30.

FACT: The current model for the Office of Independent Review still needs tweaking, but it has come a long way from the original proposal. It is our hope that this Office of Independent Review, if established, will focus and work directly and only with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. While we believe all county government deserves scrutiny and oversight, the OIR model would work most efficiently if focused on the Sheriff's Department alone. Additionally, we hope to include a "community" component, perhaps through the Human Relations Commission to ensure that those we serve have a voice in the process.

FACT: Regardless of what some in the media are writing, the Sheriff has been an advocate for oversight for many years. At the board hearing in May where Supervisor Moorlach unveiled his scheme plan, the Sheriff spoke:

"Let me agree with everything that Supervisor Moorlach said. He and I have had this discussion about oversight within the county long before I was an elected official and when he was trying to become an elected official. It was a lack of oversight that I believed caused the largest municipal bankruptcy this nation has ever seen. So I have been an advocate for oversight for quite awhile."

FACT: Specifically, what the Sheriff and Sheriff's command staff objected to was the tact and the direction Supervisor Moorlach was taking to move his proposal forward. Supervisor Moorlach believes there is a need for greater transparency in county government, however, based on what was said during the discussion in May, it appears that Supervisor Moorlach's original proposal for law enforcement oversight was created in secret, with little discussion or participation from members of the Board and the law enforcement officials his proposal would effect. Again, the Sheriff discussed this at the hearing in May:

"It's not the fact that I'm opposed to civilian oversight. I believe the proposal that has come forward, as you've already mentioned, was not vetted well through our department. In fact, there was no discussion and I don't believe we have had a chance to weigh in with the District Attorney and Probation to offer significant alternatives. It's an either or scenario," said the Sheriff.

FACT: For the record, the FACTS on our operation speak for themselves:

The Orange County Jail system remains one of the safest mega-jails in the country. Based on average daily populations, the Orange County Jail system is now the 2nd largest jail system in California and the 8th largest nationally.  In 2006, the Average Daily Population (ADP) exceeded 6,365 inmates. Our current inmate-to-staff ratio is 34 to 1, significantly higher than the national average of 14 to 1. Orange County is 60% below the national average of inmate-on-staff violence and 45% below the national average of inmate-on-inmate violence.  

FACT: The residents, businesses and visitors have extraordinary confidence in the men and women of the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

FACT: An history of the Civilian Review discussion can be found here.

This case, as with any case filed against the Sheriff's Department, garnered front page headlines when it was filed. Yesterday, the jury decided, "An Orange County Sheriff’s deputy did not wrongfully shoot and kill a potential third-striker," as reported today IN the Orange County Register, on page 1 of the Local section.

Seems it's no longer front page news.

"I'm grateful to the jury for their consideration of this matter," said Undersheriff Galisky. "I was always confident that we would prevail when a thorough review of the evidence was presented in court. Since that tragic split-second decision, many individuals have second-guessed his actions, yet Sgt. Balicki has continued to perform his duties admirably."

By last evening, the story wasn't even on the front page of the Register website. The lead is below: 

Deputy didn't wrongfully kill man, jury decides

Family of man shot and killed by now-Sgt. Joseph Balicki sued over death, alleging officer's actions were criminal.

SANTA ANA – An Orange County Sheriff’s deputy did not wrongfully shoot and kill a potential third-striker, a federal jury voted Thursday, declining to give the man’s family any damages for the officer-involved shooting.

The unanimous decision clears now-Sgt. Joe Balicki – as well as the county and the Sheriff’s Department – of financial liability in the April 16, 2003 death of Roberto Peralez in Stanton.

Peralez was driving toward Balicki when the deputy fired the fatal three shots through the van’s windshield. Before the shooting, Peralez didn’t obey deputies’ commands to surrender. Balicki testified he feared Peralez was going to run him over.

“I never intended to take that man’s life and was forced into it,’’ said Balicki, a 20-year department veteran. “It’s a very unfortunate case, and a tragic situation for the family … The verdict makes clear the job I do is supported by citizens.”

Prosecutors declined to file criminal charges against Balicki.

Finally, for the record, over the course of Sergeant Balicki's career, he has received two Medals of Courage as well as numerous commendations from citizens and other law enforcement agencies.

On the Board of Supervisors' Agenda for December 11, 2007: 

SUMMARY: 

Chairman Norby has asked that County Counsel report back to the Board on several issues regarding the Sheriff-Coroner’s current job status. 

On October 30, 2007, a federal grand jury indictment was unsealed against Sheriff-Coroner Michael S. Carona, charging him with several felonies.  On November 6, 2007, Sheriff Carona sent a “Message to the [Sheriff’s] Department,” wherein he stated that he would be taking a “sixty day leave of absence” effective November 9, 2007. 

We are advised that the Sheriff has delegated his duties to Undersheriff Galisky.  We are also advised that Undersheriff Galisky consults with him on a regular basis concerning department business, and the Sheriff is available to return to the office immediately should the need arise.  We are informed that he continues to collect his salary. 

Finally, we have available Undersheriff Galisky's press conference from Tuesday, November 7th, regarding the Sheriff's 60-day leave of absence.

Here it is, uncut and unedited, in all its glory:

(Note: Updates from Nov 8th included below) 

This blog was created to keep you and the community educated and informed on issues, activities and events related to our Department.  I was recently informed Supervisor John Moorlach is questioning not only the appropriateness of a county-paid trip in April 2007, but he is also questioning the integrity of those of us who went on the trip. Sheriff Carona, other key department members and I traveled to Lyon, France and London, England to view numerous law enforcement programs and systems in person.  The trip involved an aggressive schedule of meetings and conferences so that it would be as productive as possible.

This trip was never intended nor reported to be solely for the purpose of reviewing DNA laboratories.  We looked at numerous programs that had potential application to and could benefit the residents of Orange County.  In today’s post 9/11 world we face new challenges and risks never before imagined.  Criminals are not always local; neither are best practices.  We have always prided ourselves on being an organization that aggressively pursues new ideas and technology.

While in France we spent all of our time with officials from Interpol, sharing information and looking for opportunities to develop partnerships for the exchange of information and personnel. Numerous Federal agencies and the New York Police Department have staff temporarily assigned to Interpol and the educational and ultimate task force experience can be invaluable to an organization.   Furthermore, as a result of this trip we have continued to work with our contacts at Interpol to share information on Orange County arrestees.   

In London, our agenda was no less aggressive.  We met with numerous executive representatives from law enforcement to review programs that may have application to our department and benefit to our residents.  We met with Gary Pugh, the Director of Forensic Science Services at New Scotland Yard to discuss the pros and cons of maintaining an in house laboratory as compared to contracting DNA services to outside labs.  Issues of cost and quality control, turnaround times, evidentiary issues and contamination were all discussed.  Forensic Science Division Commander Dean Gialamas visited the FSS contract laboratory, which is some 120 miles away.   As a direct result of this trip we are currently in negotiations to obtain software that should significantly enhance our DNA database capability.   

Travel to other areas is always interesting and informative.  And, although at the time of this trip I had significant family and personal medical issues which needed my attention, I determined that the county and the department would significantly benefit from the information and experience we all would bring back. While on this trip I continued to respond to calls and e-mails from OCSD personnel and, because the travel involved considerable flight time I had plenty of time to work on Department business. I am including such details here because I understand the need for public employees to protect themselves from false allegations related to their activities.

However, what I do not understand is why Supervisor Moorlach couldn’t have called for information before insinuating that those of us who travelled lied to the Board regarding what was clearly a work related and beneficial trip.  To better explain we are providing to you the documents approving the trip, reporting the trip and in response to the questions raised. We invite you to read them and we believe any questions regarding the purpose and benefit of the trip will be answered. Finally, The Orange County District Attorney's office has also visited England for the purpose of evaluating potential benefits to Orange County law enforcement and the residents we serve. Anyone who continues to doubt the validity and importance of such trips may wish to contact the District Attorney's office for further justification.

Here's the Agenda Staff Report requesting approval from the Board of Supervisors for the Sheriff to travel.

Here's the itinerary of our trip.

Here's a letter to the County CEO we sent last week.

Here's an Interpol Press Release on the Sheriff's visit.

Update, November 8th: Here's one Supervisor's understanding of the visit to Europe. This comes from Supervisor Bates' newsletter and was written on March 23rd, after the Board approved the trip for the Sheriff (prior to the trip):

"At Tuesday’s meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved the Sheriff-Coroner to travel to Great Britain and France to meet with law enforcement, private sector and government officials on international terrorism and law enforcement issues. Sheriff Carona will travel to Lyon, France, to meet with Secretary General Ronald Noble of Interpol for a series of classified briefings on intelligence, drug and human trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. Establishing a direct relationship with Interpol will provide the Sheriff with direct access to timely intelligence. The Sheriff will also travel to London to meet with Great Britain’s top metropolitan police agency, Scotland Yard, to be briefed by its commissioners on security operations at London-Heathrow Airport and on the London Underground public transportation system. He will be given a briefing on the Closed Circuit Television system utilized for security in the greater London area. Upon his return, Sheriff Carona will provide the Board of Supervisors with a complete report on findings and public safety goals developed from the comprehensive briefings."
 

And here's Supervisor Bates' take on the trip after the Sheriff and Command Staff returned:

"Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona recently met with Secretary General Ronald K. Noble at the Interpol headquarters in Lyon, France, to identify ways in which vital international police information could be accessed by officers on the street.

The world’s largest police organization, each of Interpol’s 186 member countries has an Interpol National Central Bureau (NCB) which is controlled and staffed by the national authorities of that country.

Located in Washington DC, the United States NCB includes police representatives from a number of federal and state law enforcement agencies, and has been working with the General Secretariat to extend Interpol services to officers in the field.

“If Orange County Sheriff’s Deputies were given direct access to Interpol’s tools such as the Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database, this would have a major impact on our ability to carry out our job of protecting all residents and visitors,” said Sheriff Carona.

Since January, 2007, Orange County Sheriff’s Department Jail Deputies have had official designation from the US’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to interview foreign nationals taken into custody. Enabling access to Interpol’s international databases would further assist local law enforcement to identify international wanted persons arrested in Orange County.

For more information, please click here."

To view photos of Sheriff Carona meeting with Secretary General Ronald K. Noble at Interpol headquarters, please click here.

"People have expressed concerns about the effect of the allegations on the ongoing operations of the Sheriff’s Department.  

Public safety remains our highest priority. Consequently, we are formulating a plan to allow the command staff to handle day-to-day operations during those times that I will need to devote my time and attention to exonerating my wife and myself.  

We will be releasing the details of this operational plan in the near term. 

Let me make it clear that I have absolutely no intention of resigning during the pendency of this case."

The Sheriff conducted several media interviews this afternoon. During the interviews he released a statement and answered their questions. The statement is below.

"Last week, my department and I spent long hours working with our colleagues in law enforcement and the fire service, battling the fires that devastated Orange County. Today, I find myself in a firestorm of a different type.

This is not a complex matter. Simply put, I have NEVER misused the Office of the Sheriff of Orange County for financial gain. Any fair review of the evidence can only lead to that conclusion. And I am offended that similar accusations have been made about my wife, which are also patently false. I look forward to my day in court.

I have retained excellent counsel to assist me in demonstrating the falsity of the accusations and I will rely on their counsel and expertise in doing so. 

For nine years, I have been privileged to lead the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, considered to be one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the country. I intend to continue to lead the Department during this process, and will continue to work hard for all the residents of this county. I am confident that with the full support of my staff, an excellent organizational structure, and my dedication and work ethic that there will be no drop off in the level of service of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to the community as this case moves forward.  

I have proudly served in law enforcement for over thirty years. I respect and believe in our system of justice. That is why I am fully confident that justice will be done here, and I will be completely vindicated."

Undersheriff Jo Ann Galisky sent the following letter to Department personnel:

"Earlier today, an official announcement of a Federal Grand Jury indictment against our Sheriff was released to the public.  This event has caused a great deal of concern throughout the Department while also generating rumors and misinformation that will be exacerbated by an expected frenzy of media and press activity in the days and weeks ahead.  It is imperative that timely and accurate information be disseminated to you as this matter develops so as to keep you informed of events as they unfold. 

Sheriff Carona received the indictment and has reviewed the allegations against him.  He feels great confidence that he will be cleared of any wrongdoing as the case works its way through the court system.  While it has caused distress in his personal life and among his family, the Sheriff is eager to present his case and have the truth revealed.   

Earlier this afternoon, the Sheriff’s Command Staff met with all Division Commanders to discuss this issue and to provide direction.  Despite all that has occurred today and everything that will ensue in the days ahead, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department continues to provide invaluable public safety services to the community.  Our Department remains intact and continues to excel.  Nothing must detract us from our primary mission.  Please keep up the levels of excellence and professionalism in the performance of your duties.  Remain united and focused.   

Be mindful of the policies concerning media and press contacts as you may be solicited for information.  All Department members are encouraged to review the Sheriff’s blog for the latest developments."

David Griffith writes, "The public believes that TASERs kill, and something must be done to change their minds." He continues:

"...The headline always reads like the Aug. 5 headline in the Chicago Tribune: "Man Dies After Police Use TASERs During Arrest."

Headlines like this have convinced the public that TASERs kill. The irony here is that TASERs have saved a lot of lives, both police lives and the lives of people who might have been killed by police if they hadn't been TASERed.

Demonizing such a beneficial tool is clearly part of the agenda of activists. And unfortunately their propaganda has convinced a lot of the public that TASERs are deadly.

Perhaps the only way to counter this propaganda is through citizen education. Unfortunately, unless you can convince the press to publish or broadcast a story praising the TASER as a life-saving device, then citizen education is going to be an uphill battle.

Still, that's a battle you must fight. Because the goal of your detractors is to deprive you of one of your most effective and benign weapons. Such a misguided decision could be deadly for you and the people you serve."

We've discussed these three bills before. It appears the Governor agreed that such legislation would endanger public safety. Below is his reasoning for veto.