Sign up for OCSD updates
Sandra Hutchens
Sheriff
Categories
Tags
Blogroll
Download OPML file 
|
April 24, 2009 16:36 by John
Recent statements by a prosecutor about a “code of silence” as part of a “thin blue line” are an affront to all in law enforcement.
In my 30 years in law enforcement I have never heard a prosecutor make such an irresponsible claim.
The remarks came after a mistrial was declared in the case of Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher Hibbs, prosecuted for assaulting an arrestee with an electronic control devise, a Taser. It was a criminal case developed by deputies and Investigators in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and turned over to the District Attorney for prosecution.
As soon as it came to my attention that misconduct may have taken place in connection with the Hibbs case, I ordered a review of the trial transcripts and other documents available to the Sheriff’s Department. We will look for any evidence to support the allegation that a deputy, or a few deputies, attempted to cover up for their colleague. If it is determined that such misconduct took place, we will take action that is in the best interest of the public we serve. If we find no misconduct took place, our employees will be exonerated.
When I took office in June 2008, I inherited a Department that had just been publically criticized by a special grand jury investigating the death of inmate John Chamberlain. The Grand Jury and the District Attorney decided not to bring any criminal charges against any members of the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the Chamberlain case. At the time I became Sheriff, all of the Department personnel accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Chamberlain case had either left the Department or they had already been placed on administrative leave by Acting Sheriff Jack Anderson. None of the individuals named by the Grand Jury for misconduct during the Chamberlain case remain employed by the Department.
I found no support in my Department for those culpable in the Chamberlain case. I found a great deal of support for me to take the action necessary to hold our deputies and civilian employees accountable for their actions, to commend excellence and to discipline the malicious and substandard performers.
Staff changes, enhanced supervisory procedures, and accountability measures have been implemented to ensure that any culture of complacency that may have existed is extinguished.
Any evidence of Department personnel covering up for each other will be treated as a violation of Department regulations and if facts warrant, a criminal act.
Even clear evidence that a couple of deputies covered up for each other would not rise to the level to be classified as a “code of silence.” I’m not sure what the “thin blue line” remark was meant to convey.
A “code of silence” can only flourish in an institution that encourages it. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department as it exists today only encourages its members to be truthful and forthcoming. Any conduct that is not truthful and forthcoming will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. If criminal conduct is discovered it will be turned over to the district attorney.
The members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department will do their jobs to the best of their ability.
The overwhelming majority of the 4,000 men and woman who work in the Orange County Sheriff’s Department have exhibited that they excel at their jobs and perform their duty with honor and integrity. The communities we serve know this.
When Department employees are unsuccessful because of a lack of competence or malicious conduct, their failure and their fate will be the Sheriff’s responsibility.
January 28, 2009 09:59 by Ryan
The Los Angeles Times' Tami Abdollah reports on yesterday's Board meeting. Here are the key graphs:
...Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said she discovered the camera had zoomed in on Norby's notes and Supervisor Janet Nguyen's BlackBerry.
Hutchens, hired last year after her predecessor was indicted, said she alerted both supervisors, launched an internal investigation and informed Stephen Connolly at the Orange County Office of Independent Review so that he could monitor the investigation.
Here's the entire story:
Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby wants to bar the Sheriff's Department from handling security in the Hall of Administration after an investigator used a security camera to zoom in on Norby's notes and a colleague's BlackBerry messages during a board meeting.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors asserted control over security in the board chambers and weighed whether to hire a private firm or a local police department to provide security in the Hall of Administration.
The issue stems from a Jan. 13 board meeting when the Sheriff's Department stepped up security because of community tensions over layoffs and the sheriff's highly publicized decision to revoke concealed weapons permits. The boardroom's security camera, typically operated by security guards, was handled by an investigator during the roughly four-hour meeting and primarily used to pan the audience for suspicious or unusual activity.
When a concealed weapons advocacy group filed a records request for the security tapes last week, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said she discovered the camera had zoomed in on Norby's notes and Supervisor Janet Nguyen's BlackBerry.
Hutchens, hired last year after her predecessor was indicted, said she alerted both supervisors, launched an internal investigation and informed Stephen Connolly at the Orange County Office of Independent Review so that he could monitor the investigation.
Norby and Nguyen were granted a chance to view the tapes, but expressed outrage when they were not given copies of the entire recording. Releasing the recordings would jeopardize the safety of undercover deputies at the meeting as well as pose other security risks to ongoing investigations, sheriff's spokesman John McDonald said.
"The sheriff was upset about the taping of what was on their desks," McDonald said. "We've offered all five members of the supervisors copies of those portions of the tapes that were upsetting to the sheriff. And that was accepted by some members of the supervisors and declined by some others."
At Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, the supervisors unanimously approved additions to its rules and procedures that formally established its power over security measures within the board's chambers and affirmed its ownership of security recordings. According to the rule changes, these security recordings are "confidential and are not public," but can be made available to any board member upon request as long as it does not violate state law.
Norby also requested that the county examine contracting out the security for the Hall of Administration to a private firm or the Santa Ana Police Department. The county Civic Center is in Santa Ana.
County Chief Executive Officer Thomas Mauk said the building's security costs are about $800,000 a year. Mauk told the board he will report the full costs, possible savings and existing options for such a change.
"There's a price issue and there's a control issue," Norby said. "I'm sure we could save money and we'd also have more control.
"Right now," he said, "the sheriff has essentially said 'I'll do what I want, and what the board wants doesn't matter. And these security tapes are my property and I'm not going to give them to you'. Yet we know these security tapes include improper looking at the board, but we don't know what's on them because we can't see them. It's an odd confrontational tack to take. . . . I thought we'd be on the same side."
January 22, 2009 11:28 by John
On Thursday morning Sheriff Hutchens discussed blog reports that the Department had "spied" on two members of the Board of Supervisors with bloggers and news reporters.
She said that when she first learned that a security camera intended to monitor the audience at the January 13, 2009 meeting of the Board had focused on the Supervisors desks, she was more than surprised.
"I was concerned when I heard about this, I was upset," Sheriff Hutchens said.
She made it clear that the cameras were intended for security purposes. She added that the recording was such that nothing written could be read on either Supervisor's desk.
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens issued this statement this morning regarding the incident:
This week, the Clerk of the Board and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department Records and Information Services Division received a Public Records Request (PRA) from Ordinary California Citizens Concerned with Safety (OCCCWS) for security video from the Board of Supervisors Meeting held on January 13, 2009.
Tuesday night I was alerted to an incident on the approximately 4-hour video where the particular camera in question was being utilized to scan the boardroom and alert our personnel to any potential security concerns. The security camera was used to zoom in on Supervisor Nguyen’s blackberry for approximately thirty seconds and paperwork on Supervisor Norby’s desk for approximately one minute. I immediately ordered an internal investigation.
I also notified the Office of Independent Review and, in an effort to be completely transparent, I contacted Supervisor Norby and Supervisor Nguyen to alert them of this discovery.
The security measures put in place are intended to protect life and property, maintain order, and protect the public’s 1st Amendment rights.
Red County Blog has posted some of the Sheriff's comments and a podcast of part of her interview. To see and hear it click here.
January 15, 2009 09:45 by John
Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Preparations for the Tuesday January 13, 2009 Board of Supervisors Meeting -- From Assistant Sheriff Mike Hillmann, Field Operations Command
In preparation for the meeting, information from several sources was brought to the attention of the Sheriff's Department regarding potential for recently laid-off Orange County employees, numerous individuals representing "The Carrying Concealed Weapons" issues and the "Open Carry Firearms" groups who wished to attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting. These groups were expected to engage in a First Amendment protected activity in front of the Hall of Administration and/or inside during the Board meeting. The OCSD carefully evaluated all the information and gave great weight to a balanced approach of protection of First Amendment Rights and that of public safety. In that endeavor, signage was posted in the lobby of the Board indicating that no firearms would be allowed inside during the public meeting with the exception of law enforcement. Additionally, selected areas were designated for persons wishing to demonstrate outside and Deputies assigned to liaison with them; and an Incident Action Plan was prepared outlining that Deputies would be both in plain clothes and in uniform to monitor activities. Deputies were directed to be vigilant in monitoring those individuals who, based on reasonable suspicion, appeared to possess a firearm, and to politely inquire if they were carrying a firearm; if this were the case they would be asked to return to their vehicle and secure their weapon (loaded or unloaded). If an individual carried a firearm, undetected into the Board Room, several plain clothes Deputies were positioned inside and directed to monitor and respond to such an occurrence. The deployment of both plain clothes and uniform Deputies was done as a measure to balance public safety with First Amendment protection.
In addition, deputies were provided with authority information regarding the First Amendment, California Penal Code and the Orange County Board of Supervisors, rules of Procedure.
No incidents of individuals carrying any firearm inside the Board meeting were disclosed. During the meeting however, three subjects were contacted by Deputies. One subject was contacted by a Deputy in uniform who inquired if armed. The subject stated no and was allowed to continue inside. The second subject was carrying a blue bag left in one of the seats in his row. A plain clothes Deputy inquired of the subject if any weapons were inside. The subject stated no and no further action was taken. The third subject had a bulge on his left side and was asked by a female plain clothes Deputy if he had a weapon. The subject, who was seated at the time, lifted his shirt and demonstrated he had a cellular telephone. The subject was allowed to remain seated and no further action was taken. No ancillary groups appeared who wished to engage in First Amendment activity outside the Board meeting.
December 7, 2008 12:09 by John
The Orange County Register today published Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' rebuttal to their editorial last week criticizing the Department for jail reform and the recently released Jail Audit.
This was her rebuttal:
Your editorial “Jail report: Spend more, reform nothing” provided a disservice to your readers and the community by misstating facts and giving the impression that the Orange County Sheriff’s Department used a jail audit to delay reform urged by the Orange County grand jury.
Reforms following the tragic murder of inmate John Chamberlain in October 2006 began even before the grand jury started looking into his death. That reform continues and has never been put on hold.
The jail audit was a top to bottom review of the county’s jail facilities and practices and policies of jail staff and administration.
The grand jury investigation brought to light some unprofessional practices that cannot be defended. None of the command staff responsible for those practices remain with the Sheriff’s Department. Jail commanders have been rotated and supervision within the jails has improved. There are more sergeants on the floor, we have computerized oversight of supervisor’s logs and enhanced video surveillance of both inmates and staff. Vulnerable inmates like John Chamberlain are now housed in a protected unit.
All of that was begun before the jail audit commenced and the effort continues on a daily basis.
My command staff and I have spent untold hours inspecting the jails and reviewing jail policies. We found a lot of problems but also a lot good practices worth keeping.
A 20-year study of in custody deaths in the seven Southern California counties showed that Orange County had the lowest death rate. Justice Department officials who inspected our facilities after Chamberlain’s death concluded, “the deputies we met were very professional, intelligent, and dedicated public servants who would be a credit to any organization.”
The consulting firm of Crout and Sida is one of the country’s foremost experts in corrections. Members of the firm spent over 1,000 hours examining every aspect of our jail system. They looked at the county jail system with a critical eye and made 115 recommendations for change.
Does that sound like they are recommending no reform?
Some of the recommendations provide savings but overall we have a need for more staff and improved facilities.
The price tag to implement the recommendations is something none of us want to hear in this time of cost cutting. Unfortunately it is true, we as a county need to spend money to fix our jails and run our system responsibly.
Your editorial calls for privatization of the jails to save money. While cities and the state are permitted to engage private firms to operate jails, a Sheriff under California law cannot. The Sheriff has a Constitutional requirement to operate the jails.
The use of non-sworn personnel to replace all deputies in the jail is another of your recommendations. Our jail deputies are mobilized in emergencies in Orange County. Many of the Deputies who helped evacuate homes in last month’s destructive wildfire work in the jails.
My comments to the board were minimized in your news reports. I do support and will initiate substantial civilianization of our jail staff but not at a level that would diminish our ability to respond to emergencies.
I am committed to jail reform and recognize the harsh truth presented by the Crout and Sida report.
Two years ago your paper took a hard look at the death of John Chamberlain. Perhaps it is time for your reporters to return to the story and see what changes have been undertaken since then. From the tone of your latest editorial, the change might surprise you.
October 10, 2008 11:03 by Damon
Sheriff Hutchens was questioned at length by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday about her review of CCWs, licenses to carry concealed firearms. The Orange County Register has written two stories since then, outlining the controversy and some of the reasons the review was ordered.
To read those stories, click here and click here.
The Sheriff's statement on her action follows.
IT’S SIMPLE, IT’S THE LAW
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
As a citizen, I support the 2nd amendment and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my sworn duty to uphold the law and apply it equitably to all people. Recently, there have been some who have questioned my policy on the issuance of concealed weapon permits. I would like to take this opportunity to give you the facts. California Penal Code Section 12025(a) prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm. California Penal Code Section 12050 authorizes the Sheriff of a county or the chief of a municipal police department to issue a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Penal Code Section 12050 was designed to be an exception to Penal Code section 12025(a)—not a way around it.
Penal Code Section 12050 reads in part: The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person ………
The only guidance on “good cause” is from a 1977 Attorney General’s opinion : Opinion No. CR 77/30I.L. states “the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family, or his employees). Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant’s obtaining a concealed weapons license.”
As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my duty to follow the law as it currently exists. Some have argued that I am somehow impacting their 2nd amendment constitutional rights. This could not be further from the truth. My decision to issue or not issue a concealed weapons permit to an applicant in no way impacts that individual’s right to bear arms in their place of business or in their home. In fact, I would encourage those who are concerned about the concealed weapons permit policy to put their energies into getting the law changed. And, if the State of California decides to change Penal Code section 12025(a), I will support that law as well.
I encourage anyone who believes they have good cause to apply for a Concealed Weapons Permit to apply. It’s simple: The decisions I make and those made by the over 4000 members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department are to follow and uphold the law. I believe that is what the citizens of Orange County want us to do and what I was hired to do.
August 26, 2008 08:03 by Damon
With all that’s being written about the Sheriff’s Department PSR program, Sheriff Hutchens held a press conference on Monday to set the record straight. She highlighted some the invaluable work and services the PSRs provide the Sheriff’s Department and the County, free of charge. She also discussed her decision to have the badges returned.
The press conference in its entirety can be seen here at Red County blog.
CBS/KCAL ran this story last night.
FOX 11’s Chris Blatchford had this report.
And here’s Eyewitness News’ Elieen Frere.
August 20, 2008 10:17 by John
Several news organizations have reported on the Department's Policy on the use of Tasers and these reports have caused some confusion.
The Department revised its policy on the use of Tasers on April 18, 2008.
The Orange County Grand Jury issued its annual report on The State of Orange County Jails on June 4, 2008. That grand jury report raised several questions concerning the use of Tasers in the jails.
The Department responded to those questions on August 8, 2008, as part of our overall response to the State of Orange County Jails report. The grand jury posted our response on their Website on Monday.
There have been some inquiries made that indicate some people believe we changed our Taser policy this week. The April 18 revision is the latest revision. The news reports this week are about the Department's response to the grand jury.
To see the grand jury report and the response, click here.
July 28, 2008 11:30 by John
The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial on Saturday praising the actions of Sheriff Sandra Hutchens but they mischaracterized one of her initiatives. The editorial inferred that she was dismantling the Professional Services Respoder program. She has recalled badges from the PSRs. It was not in a step toward dismantling the program but rather to restructure it to better serve the needs of the Department.
"I disagree with the characterization in the Los Angeles Times that few of the PSRs help the Department. The PSRs provide a valuable service to the Department and we do not want to lose them. I plan to retool the program to erase the negative perception that continues to undermine their extraordinary work ." she said.
The Editorial began with this:
O.C. Sheriff shines the badge
Sandra Hutchens' efforts to repair her department's image are on target.
July 26, 2008
Orange County's new sheriff started off with reforms that were by and large symbolic gestures to clean government. Stripping badges from civilian volunteers, few of whom actually helped the department. Reviewing all of the concealed-weapons permits issued in recent years. Traveling without an entourage. Good for her. A few symbols of ethical behavior were exactly what the department needed.
To read the entire editorial click here.
July 1, 2008 09:00 by John
The staff of the Support Services Division makes it possible for a Department as large as ours to function in the most efficent manner possible. Some of the divisions personnel were recognized recently for the Accomplishments that make it possible for the rest of us to do our jobs the best way possible.
Project: Microfiche Conversion
Project Manager: Carol Ann Mendoza
· Increased staff efficiency and improved service by converting departmental crime reports and other Sheriff records (approximately 21,000,000 images) that were stored on microfilm to digital images. These images are now available to multiple users from their desktop computers. It is also a much better way to permanently retain the records, which are now replicated electronically to an offsite backup storage system.
Key staff members:
o Howard Huang
o Ken Hong
o Therese Morales
o Martin Herrmann
o Olivia Prudencio (now w/Financial) More...
June 20, 2008 10:30 by John
When the driver of an Hummer parked illegally in a handicap parking spot threatened Alice Chandler last week, she called 911. Three Deputies responded to the scene. They gave the man a ticket and suggested Chandler call them next time before she confronts a parking violator.
The feisty lady, five days shy of her 80th birthday, informed the deputies that she had once been a Special Deputy for the Orange County Sheriff's Department and she still had her badge and gun.
"The one deputy gave me look," she said later. "It got me wondering whether I should turn it in."
She went home and wrote a letter to Sheriff Sandra Hutchens. She congratulated Sheriff Hutchens as the first female Sheriff in Orange County. Former Special Deputy Chandler wondered whether she may have been the first female Deputy Sheriff in the Department.
"I am not sure if there was ever another woman deputy at that time, at least I never met or heard of one," she said in her letter.
Department records reviewed so far were unable to determine whether or not she was the Department's first female Deputy.
Although Department records indicate she was Special Deputy, she was given a Deputy Sheriff's badge.
"I was told by Sheriff Musick that I had the full responsiblility of a deputy sheriff and could be called at anytime should they need me and I felt so proud to have my badge and the responsibiity," she said in the letter.
She came to the Division Commanders meeting on Thursday, her 80th birthday, and formally turned her badge, identification card and gun, a .32 caliber long revolver, to Sheriff Hutchens and Captain Davis Nighswonger. She was given a birthday cake and a rendition of "Happy Birthday to You" by all who were present.
To read a Los Angeles Times account of the story click here.
June 9, 2008 13:17 by John
A news story in the Los Angeles Times four weeks ago regarding Department overtime issues has triggered a county audit and an internal change on how overtime is tracked by Division Commanders.
Meanwhile another news organization in the county continues the examination of Department overtime that they began in February. Overtime expenses were recently reviewed by the Orange County Grand Jury.
The grand jury report was made public last week and on the issue of overtime, there was no adverse finding or recommendation and the Department was not required to respond. The grand jury conclusion was this:
Deputy Overtime in the OCSD Jail System
The Grand Jury examined the Sheriff-Coroner Department overtime costs for the last five fiscal years. Although overtime costs have increased during this timeframe, the increases have been proportionate to salary increases averaging 9% of salary and employee benefit costs. The Sherriff-Coroner Department has been under total budget for each of the last five fiscal years.
Acting Sheriff Jack Anderson recognized the need for Deputies to work overtime in order to fulfill our obligations. He thanked staff members who volunteer to work it in accordance with Department regulations. During the Santiago Fire and the subsequent flooding, over 1,300 individuals from the Sheriff’s Department worked overtime to protect the public. More...
March 25, 2008 11:29 by Ryan
Sent Friday, March 21:
The Honorable Carolyn V. Cavecche, Mayor
City of Orange
300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
Dear Mayor Cavecche:
First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before your Honorable City Council on March 11, 2008 regarding the County of Orange’s application for State funding of up to $100 million for the purpose of constructing additional jail facilities at the James A. Musick facility. Additionally, I am in receipt of the City of Orange draft Resolution No. 10274 which articulates the City’s opposition to our proposal to operate reentry programs for State inmates at Theo Lacy. The purpose of this letter is clarify our proposal for State reentry programs, repeat my offer to work with the City of Orange as the County moves forward through the application process, and to offer comments on the draft Resolution.
Historically, the County has struggled to keep pace with the rising demand for jail beds. From 1996 through 2000, an average of about 18,000 inmates were released early from jail, each year, due to the lack of jail beds. Addressing the shortage of jail beds has been a multi-pronged approach. The most obvious approach was expanding the Theo Lacy facility to its maximum capacity as defined by the revised MOU between the City of Orange and the County that was approved by the Board on March 24, 1998. In addition, the County’s criminal justice system conducts a wide variety of alternatives to incarceration that have shifted low level offenders to out-of-custody programs such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, home confinement, and community work programs. However, even with the efforts of the past, the Orange County jail system is overcrowded and expected to need an additional 3,217 rated beds by the year 2011. The opportunity to compete for up to $100 million for jail construction at Musick is something I believe is critical to the County being able to add jail beds to help keep Orange County a safe place to live, work, and play.More...
March 20, 2008 09:49 by John
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.
February 22, 2008 16:20 by Ryan
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
February 4, 2008 12:12 by Ryan
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.
December 7, 2007 14:28 by Ryan
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.
December 5, 2007 11:55 by Ryan
On the Board of Supervisors' Agenda for December 11, 2007:
SUMMARY:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(1) Does the Sheriff have the authority to select to whom he delegates his duties while he is on a voluntary leave of absence? More...
November 7, 2007 17:43 by Ryan
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.
"Friday's issues of the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times articles were written implying that I profited from the death of one of our own, Deputy Brad Warner. Brad's untimely and unnecessary death was a shock to all who had worked and knew him. His death caused a tremendous sense of loss to his family and the family of the Orange County Sheriff's Department. As in other times of loss to our Department--Brad Riches, Matt Davis, Steve Parsons, the "family" gathers together to support the family of the loved one and the Department Family. During such a time many referrals may be offered, directing the family to grief counselors, financial assistance, and attorneys when necessary. However, I can tell you all without hesitation, and with a degree of anger toward Friday's articles on this matter, that I did not profit from Deputy Brad Warner's death and anything said to imply otherwise is a lie. The concept of profiting from the loss of a department member is beyond the comprehension of us who serve the community of Orange County.
What I do know is that since I became Sheriff the department has created a comprehensive death benefits informational package for the loved ones of an employee who tragically dies. What immediately happens when a death occurs is that the department, county, and their union representative "family" quickly gather together to develop a plan to support the employee's more immediate family. Ensuring that the employee's family is able to take full benefit of all entitled benefits and insurances, often times as necessary with the Sheriff's Advisory Council, Project 999, and AOCDS or OCEA making cash gifts to the employee's immediate family so that they are not initially financially burdened.
In an effort to recognize the valued work performed by the men and women of our department I have directed changes that over the past nine years have resulted in the attendance at the Medal of Valor Awards ceremony to increase from 300 to over a 1,000 attendees. The Sheriff's Advisory Council's membership has increased by 50% and they have unwaveringly rendered their support underwriting costs related to the deaths our members. The Project 999 Foundation's endowment has grown 120% in the past nine years, making more funds available to members of our family in their time of need."
"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."
October 30, 2007 17:39 by Ryan
Their news release:
"Earlier today, the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs learned of the serious legal issues facing Sheriff Mike Carona. Sheriff Carona and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department have been instrumental in making the County of Orange one of the safest places to live in the country. We have made improvements in corrections, the court system, patrol, investigations and the Orange County harbors. Innovative programs such as the Amber Alert program and the DNA Laboratory have been implemented under Sheriff Carona’s administration.
For over thirty years the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs has vigorously represented and defended the rights of it members. We recognize that under the criminal justice system one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs will withhold any opinion on these allegations until the facts are known and the findings are in. Sheriff Carona should be afforded all of the rights and guarantees that our great country and legal system would extend to any citizen in this situation.
The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs calls upon the public and elected officials not to act prematurely in this situation, including inserting themselves into the proceedings. We encourage our decision makers to act in the best interest of the community and to allow the judicial process to run its course.
Be assured, our members will continue to provide the very best in law enforcement service to the citizens of Orange County.
For information contact the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs General Manager Mark Nichols (714) 285-2800."
October 30, 2007 17:21 by Ryan
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."
October 30, 2007 17:18 by Ryan
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."
|
|