INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE. The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

Transcription

1 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE May 2, TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: OPERATIONS CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMAND ACCOUNTABILITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT (IAID NO ) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. That the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE the attached Operations Central Bureau (OCB) Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit (CAPA). 2. That the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE the attached Executive Summary thereto. DISCUSSION Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted the OCB Vice CAPA to evaluate adherence with related Department directives. If additional information regarding this inspection is required, please contact Gerald L. Chaleff, Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, at (213) Respectfully, CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police Attachment

2 Los ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS - CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMAND ACCOUNTABILITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT (IAID No ) CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police February 2013

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OPERATIONS - CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMAND ACCOUNTABILITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT P CF No. i PURPOSE 1 BACKGROUND 1 PRIOR AUDITS 1 METHODOLOGY 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2 DETAILED FINDINGS 3 OBJECTIVE No. 1 EVALUATION OF ARREST REPORTS 3 ARTICULATION OF REASONABLE SUSPICION AND OBJECTIVE No. 1(a) PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST OBJECTIVE No. 1(b) ARTICULATION OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE 4 OBJECTIVE No. 1(c) ADMONITION OF MIRANDA RIGHTS 4 OBJECTIVE No. 2 EVALUATION OF SEARCH/RAMEY WARRANT PACKAGES OBJECTIVE No. 3 CONSISTENCY OF INFORMATION 5 OBJECTIVE No. 4 COMPLETION OF STANDARDS BASED ASSESSMENTS 6 OBJECTIVE No. 5 ADHERENCE TO DISROBING REQUIREMENTS 8 OBJECTIVE No. 6 EVALUATION OF SUPERVISORY ROLES 9 OTHER RELATED MATTERS ACTIONS TAKEN 10 ADDENDUM A - OCB VICE CAPA RESPONSE

4 OPERATIONS - CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMMAND ACCOUNTABLITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Conducted by Internal Audits and Inspections Division Fiscal Year 2012/13 PURPOSE In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2012/13 Department Annual Audit and Inspection Plan, Internal Audits and Inspections Division (IAID) conducted the Operations Central Bureau (OCB) Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit (CAPA). The Vice CAPAs are performed to determine if the internal controls within each Area are effective to ensure they are operating within Los Angeles Police Department (Department) policies and procedures, as well as other established criteria set forth by State and federal guidelines. Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted this performance audit under the guidance of generally accepted government auditing standards, specifically pertaining to performing the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Internal Audits and Inspections Division has determined that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Table No. 1 on the following page contains the summary of findings. RECOMMENDATION None. ACTIONS TAKEN Internal Audits and Inspections Division presented the CAPA report and findings to the Commanding Officer, Operations - Central Bureau and the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, who were in general agreement with the results.

5 Operations Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Executive Summary Page ii of ii SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Table No. 1 depicts the summary of audit findings for each objective.' Objective No. 1(a) TABLE No. 1 SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS Total Number Total Description of Audit Objective that met the Number Standards Reviewed 1. Evaluation of Arrest Reports Articulation of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause to Arrest Percentage Meeting Standards % 1(b) Articulation of Search and Seizure % 1(c) Admonition of Miranda Rights % 2 2. Evaluation of Search/Ramey Warrant Packages Evaluation of Search/Ramey Warrant N/A N/A N/A Packages 3. Consistency of Information 3 Consistency of Information % 4 4. Completion of Standards Based Assessments Completion of Standards Based Assessments 5. Adherence to Disrobing Requirements % 5 Adherence to Disrobing Requirements % 6. Evaluation of Supervisory Roles 6 Evaluation of Supervisory Roles % 1 This was the first Vice CAPA, therefore, there was no comparison chart.

6 OPERATIONS - CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMAND ACCOUNTABLITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT Conducted by Internal Audits and Inspections Division Fiscal Year 2012/13 PURPOSE In accordance with the Fiscal Year 2012/13 Department Annual Audit and Inspection Plan, Internal Audits and Inspections Division (IAID) conducted the Operations Central Bureau (OCB) Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit (CAPA). The Vice CAPAs are performed to determine if the internal controls within each Area are effective to ensure they are operating within Los Angeles Police Department (Department) policies and procedures, as well as other established criteria set forth by State and federal guidelines. Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted this performance audit under the guidance of generally accepted government auditing standards, specifically pertaining to performing the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Internal Audits and Inspections Division has determined that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. BACKGROUND Internal Audits and Inspections Division developed CAPAs to address risk management issues, assess operations, and provide timely information to Department management pertaining to vice units. PRIOR AUDITS This is the first Vice CAPA performed for OCB and the Department. METHODOLOGY Scope The audit included the evaluation of Arrest Reports; evaluation of search/ramey Warrant Packages; consistency; evaluation of Vice Investigations; specifically adherence to disrobing requirements; Adult and Juvenile Detention Logs; and, Standards Based Assessments (SBAs). Deployment Period (DP) Nos. 7 and 8, 2012 (June 17 through August 11), were the time periods reviewed, and the audit steps employed are further delineated under each audit objective. NOTE: There were no search warrants served, which involved a vice officer as the affiant, during the audit period.

7 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 2 of 10 Fieldwork The fieldwork was performed between October 16, 2012 and November 8, On November 29, 2012, IAID met with the Commanding Officer (CO) of OCB and provided an Intradepartmental Correspondence, Form , explaining the audit's methodology and to request any input regarding additional areas requiring evaluation. Internal Audits and Inspections Division received a request to review the Sergeant's Daily Report (SDR), Form for each arrest date to determine if a report was completed. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Table No. 1 depicts the summary of audit findings for each objective. Objective No. 1(a) TABLE NO. 1 SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS Total Number Description of Audit Objective that met the Standards 1. Evaluation of Arrest Reports Articulation of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause to Arrest Total Number Reviewed Percentage Meeting Standards % 1(b) Articulation of Search and Seizure % 1(c) Admonition of Miranda Rights % 2 2. Evaluation of Search/Ramey Warrant Packages Evaluation of Search/Ramey Warrant N/A N/A N/A Packages 3. Consistency of Information 3 Consistency of Information % 4 4. Completion of Standards Based Assessments Completion of Standards Based Assessments 5. Adherence to Disrobing Requirements % 5 Adherence to Disrobing Requirements % 6. Evaluation of Supervisory Roles 6 Evaluation of Supervisory Roles %

8 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 3 of 10 DETAILED FINDINGS Objective No. 1 Evaluation of Arrest Reports Criteria Department Manual, Volume 4/ , Advice/Approval on Felony/Misdemeanor Bookings - states, "...the watch commander or a supervisor designated by the watch commander shall review all reports related to the arrest for appropriateness, legality, and conformance with Department policy and procedure taking into account the booking recommendation." Department Manual, Volume 4/645.20, Property Taken from an Arrestee - states, "...Property taken from an arrestee which has, or may have, evidential value shall be booked as Evidence. A Receipt for Property Taken into Custody, Form , shall be issued to the arrestee at the time that the property was removed from his/her person or control." Audit Procedures This objective included the review of arrest packages completed by all personnel assigned to OCB Vice during the audit time period. The arrest packages were evaluated to determine whether they included articulation of legal sufficiency for actions taken, and whether they contained evidence of significant deviations from Department policies and procedures. Internal Audits and Inspections Division identified a total of 47 arrest packages. A copy of each package was obtained directly from the respective Area's Records Unit. Arrest reports that indicated the above-mentioned criteria met the standards for this objective. Objective No. 1(a) Articulation of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause to Arrest Criteria Department Manual, Volume 1/508, Police Action Based On Legal Justification - states, "What is reasonable in terms of appropriate police action or what constitutes probable cause varies with each situation, and different facts may justifi) either an investigation, a detention, a search, an arrest, or no action at all. The requirement that legal justification be present imposes a limitation on an officer's action. In every case, officers must act reasonably within the limits of their authority as defined by statute and judicial interpretation, thereby ensuring that the rights of both the individual and the public are protected." "Reasonable suspicion for detention" was measured by the standards described in the California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook as, "a set of specific and articulable facts that lead an officer to reasonably believe that a crime is occurring, is about to occur, or has occurred, and that the person detained is connected to that activity which is criminal in nature."

9 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 4 of 10 Audit Procedures Internal Audits and Inspections Division reviewed the 47 arrest packages to determine whether each report sufficiently articulated the legal basis for all actions taken (i.e., detentions, arrests, and searches). Arrest packages that articulated the aforementioned criteria and procedures met the standards for this objective. Findings Each (100%) of the 47 arrest packages met the standards for this objective. Objective No. 1(b) Articulation of Search and Seizure Criteria Department Manual, Volume 4/217, Searches of Suspects and Arrestees states, "When the rules of search and seizure permit, an arrestee shall be thoroughly searched as soon as practicable." The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches. As such, Department personnel are required to document the legal basis for conducting searches which include the following: search warrants, probable cause, incident to arrest, consent, or exigent circumstances. Audit Procedures Each arrest package was reviewed and assessed to evaluate the legality of the search, including booking searches involving strip and visual body cavity searches. Arrest packages that articulated the search authority met the standards for this objective. Findings Each (100%) of the 47 arrest packages met the standards for this objective.' Objective No. 1(c) Admonition of Miranda Rights Criteria Department Manual, Volume 4/202.10, Interrogation of Suspects Admonition of Miranda Rights - states, "Officers shall read the Miranda admonition verbatim as delineated in the Officer's Notebook, Form ;...Officers shall document the suspect's responses to the Miranda admonition in the appropriate report..." 'Searches incident to arrest were not considered for this objective.

10 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 5 of 10 Audit Procedures Each arrest package was reviewed for the overall chronology of arrest events, specifically examining whether a detainee was interrogated regarding his/her participation in criminal activity. Arrest packages were also reviewed for evidence of Miranda Rights adherence. Arrest packages that contained no evidence of Miranda Rights Admonition violations met the standard for this objective. Findings Each (100%) of the 47 arrest packages met the standards for this objective. Objective No. 2 Evaluation of Search/Ramey Warrant Packages Audit procedures A review of OCB Area Warrant Tracking Logs (WTL) during the audit period revealed there were no search warrants served, which involved a vice officer as the affiant. Objective No. 3 Consistency of Information Criteria Department Manual, Volume 4/216.01, Advice/Approval on Felony Bookings - states, "Additionally, the watch commander or supervisor shall examine the reports for authenticity by ensuring that the reports do not contain any 'canned' language, inconsistent information, or fail to articulate the legal basis for the action, or any indication that the information in the report is not authentic or correct." Audit Procedures Each arrest package was reviewed and assessed for significant inconsistent information contained in the Arrest Report, Form , and associated documents. Significant inconsistent information was defined as inconsistencies that would have an impact on the investigation. Documents reviewed included the Arrest Report, Form , arrest narrative, Property Report, Form , Receipt for Property Taken into Custody, Form , Booking Approval, Form , and Probable Cause Determination. Arrest packages that did not contain significant inconsistent information within each report and associated documents met the standards for this objective.

11 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 6 of 10 Findings Forty-three (91%) of the 47 arrest packages reviewed met the standards for this objective. The arrest packages that did not meet the standards are detailed below: Central Area Booking No The name and serial number of the supervisor who approved the booking was not documented in the narrative of the arrest report. Booking Nos and The arrest report narrative stated currency was recovered and booked as personal property (not evidence); however, in the Court Information section of the arrest report, it stated that the officer can testify to the recovery of evidence.2 Newton Area Booking No The arrest report narrative indicates that the officer admonished the arrestee per LAPD, Form , and the responses were documented; however, the Investigative Action/Statement Form indicates that the arrestee refused to respond to the Miranda admonition. Objective No. 4 Completion of Standards Based Assessments Criteria Department Manual, Section 3/760.20, Standards Based Assessment - Lieutenants and Belowstates, "Supervisors who receive a Performance Evaluation Report Action Item (PERAI) shall review the concerned employee's Training Evaluation And Management System (TEAMS) report and all other available documents; complete the Standards Based Assessments (SBA), Lieutenant and Below, Form ; and, serve the employee with the final paper copy of the SBA, and complete the PERAI no later than 90-calendar days after the date it was issued."3 According to the SBA Guidelines for Completing the Report, a Risk Management Information System (RMIS) Action Item number, which corresponds with the TEAMS II Action Item number, is required in the Administrative Section of the report. The report must also contain signatures and dates of the employee, Department/Unit Assessor, reviewing supervisor, and commanding officer.4 2 In both arrests, currency was the only property recovered and booked. 3 A Standards Based Assessment is designed to reflect factual employee performance or behavior. See Department Form , (09/11).

12 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 7 of 10 Audit Procedures Internal Audits and Inspections Division reviewed the Watch Assignment and Timekeeping Sheet for OCB vice personnel employed during the audit period and determined there were a total of 40 vice personnel. The 40 personnel packages were reviewed to determine if a current SBA was complete and present for each employee's most recent anniversary date, and if it contained the appropriate signatures. Additionally, a history report was run for each officer assigned to vice through TEAMS II to determine if the PERAI was closed within 90 calendar days of the date issued. Findings Of the 40 personnel assigned to vice during the audit period, there were seven sergeants and 33 vice officers. Internal Audits and Inspections Division reviewed the packages to determine if the following Department policy and procedures were followed: The SBA was completed for the current rating period; The SBA was signed by the employee, all supervisors, and the CO; The SBA reflected an RMIS Action Item; and, The PERAI was closed within 90 calendar days of the date issued. Twenty-four (60%) of the 40 SBAs met the standards. The following did not meet the standards for the following reasons: Three personnel packages did not contain a current rating. Rampart Area (3). One SBA was signed by the Department/Unit Assessor; however, it did not contain the date. Newton Area (1). Ten SBAs (and respective PERAIs) were closed beyond 90 calendar days of the date issued. Rampart Area (4); Hollenbeck Area (3); and, Newton Area (3). One SBA did not contain the RMIS Action Item number. Central Area (1). One SBA contained the incorrect RMIS Action Item number. Central Area (1).

13 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 8 of 10 Objective No. 5 Adherence to Disrobing Requirements Criteria Vice Procedures Manual, Volume 1, Section 040, Disrobing for Vice Investigations, states: "The increased prostitution activity encountered at massage parlors and other sexually oriented business fronts, which operate as houses of prostitution, has presented vice officers with additional enforcement burdens. The locations have become highly sophisticated in their individual operations, making it difficult for officers to obtain prostitution violations and related offenses without disrobing. NOTE: For purposes of this manual, to disrobe means to remove one's clothing exposing the upper and/or lower torso. Area vice enforcement officers may disrobe during a vice investigation of major concern only after exhausting all other investigative techniques, and after obtaining prior approval. Blanket approval for disrobing shall not be permitted; therefore, each investigation requires prior written approval by the concerned bureau commanding officer... B. Requests for disrobing shall be submitted to the concerned bureau commanding officer and shall include all pertinent information to substantiate the disrobing request... D. Written after-action reports shall recapitulate all resulting enforcement activity and shall be forwarded to the concerned bureau commanding officer as soon as possible after the conclusion of the investigation. "5 Audit Procedures Internal Audits and Inspections Division reviewed each vice investigation (arrest report) to determine if there was any physical contact between the officer and the suspect. If during the physical contact auditors learned that disrobing took place, they contacted the concerned Bureau CO to ensure a disrobing request had been approved and that the vice unit completed an after-action report and forwarded it to the concerned Bureau CO. Arrest reports that contained evidence of prior written approval, as well as an after action report met the standards for this objective. Findings Of the 47 arrest reports reviewed, four were applicable for this objective. Each (100%) of the four arrest reports where disrobing took place met the standards for this objective. "B" and "D" were the only subsections applicable to this objective.

14 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 9 of 10 Objective No. 6 Evaluation of Supervisory Roles Criteria Special Order No. 33 dated June 30, 2009, Sergeant's Daily Report Field Notebook Divider, Form , Activated, states "... The SDR is intended to give Area watch commanders and commanding officers a tool to better evaluate the performance offield supervisors." The SDR is used to capture oversight activities completed by a field supervisor on a daily basis. Audit Procedures On the dates where an arrest was made by the vice unit, IAID collected the corresponding SDRs. A total of 21 SDRs, at a minimum, were required to be completed. Internal Audits and Inspections Division reviewed the SDRs to determine if one was submitted to the watch commander by the vice supervisor who had oversight of the vice unit on the arrest date, and that it sufficiently documented the day's mission and results, and was signed by the CO. Sergeant's Daily Reports that contained evidence of the aforementioned met the standards for this objective. Findings Each (100%) of the 21 SDRs reviewed met the standards for this objective. OTHER RELATED MATTERS Area Watch Commanders Although Area Watch Commanders (WCs) serve as a level of oversight for vice units, findings pertaining exclusively to Area WCs (i.e., respective approval in the arrest report, booking approval process, and detention logs) were not quantified or attributed to the vice unit's overall performance. Area WCs findings identified are indicated below: Rampart Area Booking No Although the WC noted on the detention log that the arrestee was sick, there was no indication on the arrest report face sheet that treatment was provided, prior to the arrestee being booked. Booking No The WC noted on the detention log that the arrestee disclosed that they suffered from a mental condition; however, there is no documentation that the officers notified the Mental Evaluation Unit, prior to booking the arrestee as required.6 'See Department Manual Section 4/

15 Operations - Central Bureau Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit Page 10 of 10 ACTIONS TAKEN Internal Audits and Inspections Division presented the CAPA report and findings to the Commanding Officer, Operations - Central Bureau, and the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, who were in general agreement with the results.

16 ADDENDUM A INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE January 21, TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division FROM: Commanding Officer, Operations-Central Bureau SUBJECT: OPERATIONS-CENTRAL BUREAU VICE COMMAND ACCOUNTABILITY PERFORMANCE AUDIT, SECOND QUARTER, FISCAL YEAR 2012/2013 Internal Audits and Inspection Division (IALD) conducted the Operations-Central Bureau (OCB) Vice Command Accountability Performance Audit (CAPA) for the Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2012/2013. This was the first Vice CAPA performed for OCB. The findings showed that OCB was in 100% compliance in five of the seven sections audited contained within five objectives. Discrepancies were noted for two objectives, Consistency of Information (91%) and Completion of Standard Based Assessments (60%). OCB has reviewed the findings and responded to the anomalies identified for these two objectives involving the following OCB commands: Central Area, Hollenbeck Area, Newton Area and Rampart Area. The following summarizes the responses by the OCB commands: Central Area Objective 3 Consistency of Information- Two minor discrepancies were noted. The findings and actions taken are noted below: Booking No The name and serial number of the supervisor who approved the booking was not documented in the narrative of the Arrest Report. This issue was discussed with the arresting officer and the vice supervisor who reviewed the Arrest Report. The vice sergeant was reminded of the importance of reviewing the Arrest Report and to correct the mistakes before obtaining watch commander's approval. The vice supervisor provided training to the Vice Unit. The arresting officer completed a Follow-Up Investigation Report (3.14) to address the oversight. Booking numbers and The Arrest Report narrative stated currency was recovered and booked as personal property (not as evidence). However, the Court Information section of the Arrest Report stated the officer can testini to the recovery of evidence. This was discussed with the arresting officers and the vice supervisor who reviewed the Arrest Report. Also discussed was the importance of proper documentation of evidence and personal property, including money, in the Arrest Report. Both arresting officers completed a 3.14 to address these discrepancies. Objective 4 Completion of Standards Based Assessment (SBA)- Two minor discrepancies were noted. The findings and actions taken are noted below:

17 Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division Page One SBA did not contain the RMIS Action Item number and one SBA contained the wrong RMIS Action Item number. These issues were discussed with the vice supervisor who completed the SBAs. The supervisor was aware that one of the SBAs did not have a RMIS Action Item number because he did not receive one when he received the project to complete. The SBA had a project sheet, but it did not contain the RMIS Action Item number, and the project was not assigned through the TEAMS II system to the supervisor. The SBA was submitted without the number and the supervisor believed the number would have been provided by the TEAMS II Coordinator before it was finalized. The TEAMS II Coordinator will be made aware of the issue and ensure a thorough review of the project is completed prior to it being finalized. The SBA with the incorrect number was attributed to an oversight by the supervisor responsible for the completion of the project. The importance of being accurate and thorough in the reporting process was emphasized with the supervisor. Central Area Command and Vice Unit supervisors will continue to ensure proper oversight and compliance. Hollenbeck Area Objective No. 4 Completion of Standard Based Assessments (SBA) - Three minor discrepancies were noted. The findings and actions taken are noted below: Newton Area Three SBAs were closed beyond the 90-calender day completion deadline. One employee was on loan to Hollenbeck Area during his anniversary date. Although his SBA Action Item was originally sent to Hollenbeck Area, it was later reassigned to Northeast Area for completion. The remaining two SBA Action Items were not completed within the required 90-calender day deadline. As a result, the Hollenbeck Training Unit has been tasked with disseminating Special Order No. 35, dated December 7, 2010, and this issue will be discussed at the Hollenbeck Area's supervisor meeting on January 16, Objective No. 3 Consistency of Information- One minor discrepancy was noted. The fmdings and actions taken are noted below: Booking No The Arrest Report narrative indicates that the officer admonished the arrestee per LAPD, Form 15.03, and the responses were documented However, the Investigative Action/Statement Form indicates that the arrestee refused to respond to the Miranda Admonition. It was discovered that the officer writing the report was advised by another vice officer that the suspect refused to give a statement during the Miranda Admonition. The officer writing the report was unaware that the section in the Investigative Action/Statement Form had been crossed out noting "Refused". Officers were advised of the discrepancy and training was provided to ensure accuracy. The vice supervisor will closely review all Arrest Reports prior to the report being submitted to the watch commander for final approval. A 3.14 was completed.

18 Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division Page Objective No. 4 Completion of Standards Based Assessments (SBA) - Four minor discrepancies were noted. The findings and actions taken are noted below: One SBA was signed by the Department/ Unit Assessor, but did not contain the date. Three SBAs were closed beyond 90 calendar days of the date issued. It was determined that the SBAs were either assigned to the wrong supervisor or assigned too close to the due date. As a corrective measure, the vice supervisor created a time table with the vice personnel's anniversary dates. He has implemented audit procedures to ensure the SBAs are completed in a timely manner and he will conduct regular audits to confirm compliance. Additionally, he and the Newton Area TEAMs II Coordinator are working together to ensure the SBAs are completed on time and forwarded through the chain of command within TEAMS II. Rampart Area Objective No. 4 Completion of Standards Based Assessments (SBA) - Seven minor discrepancies were noted. The findings and actions taken are noted below: The audit noted that Rampart Vice had three personnel packages that did not contain a current rating. In researching the matter, two of the missing SBAs were located. Both had been completed and contained all required signatures, then placed in the respective personnel packages. Although the third SBA was not located, the Rampart SBA Coordinator confirmed, via tracking system, that the SBA had been assigned, completed and sent to Personnel Division. If the file copy is not located, a copy will be requested from Personnel Division and placed in the personnel package. The audit noted that four Rampart Vice SBAs were completed beyond 90 calender days of the date issued It was determined that the SBA Coordinator was unaware of the strict 90-calendar day completion deadline. It should be noted that three of the four SBAs were the same ones missing from the personnel packages. The results of this audit were discussed with the Rampart SBA Coordinator to ensure strict adherence to the 90-calendar day timeline. The importance of closely tracking SBAs, from their initial assignment to their final service, was discussed, with an emphasis placed on ensuring a file copy is placed in the divisional personnel package without delay. Rampart Area will conduct periodic internal audits of SBAs. Other Related Matters Area Watch Commanders The audit also addressed ancillary issues pertaining to two occasions where the Rampart Watch Commander noted an illness or sickness for the arrestee on the Adult Detention Log (Booking Nos and ). One arrestee stated he had the flu, but there was no documentation of medical treatment in the Arrest Report. The other arrestee stated he had a mental illness, but there was no documentation in the Arrest Report that the Mental Evaluation Unit (MEU) was notified prior to booking, as required by Department policy. The results of this audit were discussed with the vice supervisors to ensure future compliance with Department policies pertaining to the arrest/booking of sick, ill, or injured suspects. This pertains to the requirement to obtain medical treatment for any arrestee claiming to be sick, and the requirement to notify

19 Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division Page MEU when an arrestee is suspected of having a mental illness. To ensure division-wide supervisory awareness of the anomalies identified in this audit, the results of the audit will be discussed at the next Rampart deployment meeting and supervisor meeting. In summary, the discrepancies identified within the identified OCB commands were investigated, with corrective measures taken. The OCB commands have taken proactive steps to ensure that there is proper supervisory oversight, and that there are properly functioning systems in place to ensure compliance with the objectives in this audit. The Intradepartmental Correspondence (15.2s) submitted by the OCB commands are attached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Lieutenant Cindy Benes, OCB Vice Coordinator, at (213) JI PEREZ, Jr., Deputy Chief Commanding Officer Operations-Central Bureau Attachments