INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE June 12, 2015 14.2 TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT (AD No. 14-028) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE the attached Complaint Process Audit. 2. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE the attached Executive Summary thereto. DISCUSSION Audit Division conducted the Complaint Process Audit to evaluate compliance of the Department's policies and procedures. If additional information regarding this audit is required, please contact Arif Alikhan, Director, Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy, at (213) 486-8730. Respectfully, CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police Attachment

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT (AD No. 14-028) Conducted by AUDIT DIVISION CHARLIE BECK Chief of Police June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT PACE No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i PURPOSE 1 PRIOR AUDIT 1 STATUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS 1 METHODOLOGY 2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2 DETAILED FINDINGS 3 OBJECTIVE No. 1(a) SELECTION PACKAGE - TEAMS EVALUATION REPORT 3 OBJECTIVE No. 1(b) SELECTION PACKAGE - TRAINING EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM II REPORT 5 OBJECTIVE No. 1(c) PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BUREAU SUSTAINED COMPLAINTS AND/OR ADVERSE JUDICIAL FINDINGS 6 OBJECTIVE No. 2(a) PERSONNEL COMPLAINT MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 7 OBJECTIVE No. 2(b) 24-HOUR TOLL FREE TELEPHONE COMPLAINT HOTLINE/SYSTEM MONITORING 8 OBJECTIVE No. 2 (c) ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINT HOTLINE RECORDINGS 9 OBJECTIVE No. 2(d) ASSESSMENT OF EMAIL COMPLAINTS INTAKE 10 OBJECTIVE No. 2(e) ASSESSMENT OF FAX COMPLAINTS INTAKE 10 OBJECTIVE No. 3 TIMELINESS OF IAG REVIEW OF THE FACE SHEET 11 OBJECTIVE No. 4 TIMELINESS OF THE COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS 12 OBJECTIVE No. 5 PROPER ASSIGNMENT OF COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS TO IAG AND CHAIN OF COMMAND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS 15 ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE 15 ADDENDUM - RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT Conducted by Audit Division Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/14 PURPOSE In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Annual Audit Plan for fiscal year 2013/14, Audit Division conducted a Complaint Process Audit to evaluate compliance with Department policies and procedures. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This audit encompassed a total of five objectives, with 11 areas tested. It was evident the Department met the standard with the overall assessments for Objective No. 2, pertaining to the public having accessibility to make complaints. The Department also did well with Objective No. 3, regarding Internal Affairs Group's (IAG's) timeliness in reviewing complaint face sheets, and Objective Nos. 4 and 5, timely completion of the investigations, and proper assignment of the complaint investigation. In regard to the overall assessment for Objective No. 1, pertaining to the selection of Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) personnel, there seems to be a misunderstanding over the requirement for Training and Evaluation Management System Reports (TERs), Form 01.78.04, to be completed for PSB positions, rather than the Transfer Action Item (TAI), Form 01.78.20. The Department considers the IAG position to be a sensitive position, akin to those within Gang Enforcement Details, Narcotics Enforcement Details, Field Training Officer, etc. The TER requires additional steps during the selection process that are not required by the TAI, which is utilized for all the other positions. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of the commendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissions of commendations and complaints. 2. Given the sensitive nature of the Special Operations Division (SOD) assignment, it is recommended that Policies and Procedures Division consult with appropriate Department command staff, and consider the inclusion of SOD personnel under the requirement to have a TER completed during the selection process. ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE A copy of the audit report was provided to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Bureau, and the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, both whom were in general agreement with the findings.

COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT Conducted by Audit Division Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/14 PURPOSE In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Audit and Inspection Plan for fiscal year (FY) 2013/14, Audit Division (AD) conducted a Complaint Process Audit to evaluate compliance with Department policies and procedures. Audit Division conducted this 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 the findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. Audit Division has determined that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. PRIOR AUDIT The most recent audit, Complaint [Form], Form [01.1.28.00]1.28, Investigations Audit Phase I, was conducted in the second quarter, FY 2011/12. Results from the prior audit indicated the Department met the standards for all objectives except "Timeliness of the Completion of Investigation" objective. There was one recommendation for Policies and Procedures Division (PPD) to consider whether Department policy should be amended to require documentation of the date the complaint investigation is completed by the investigator to ensure consistency, and to allow evaluation of the Department's 150-day goal. STATUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were made in the last audit: I. It is recommended the Department follow up on the recommendations made previously in OIG's review of Complaint [Form], Form [01.28.00] 1.28, Investigations Phase I, dated 04/02/2009, and LAID' s Complaint, Form 1.28, Investigations Audit Phase I (#09-003) dated 03/18/2010; both of which pertain to resolving the interpretation of completion dates for investigations. Note: The following was the recommendation from the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG's) review of Complaint Form, Form 01.28.00, Investigations Phase I, April 2, 2009, which stated, "The OIG recommends that the Department and the OIG come to an agreement as to what specifically the complaint investigation completion date should represent, and work together to standardize procedures to ensure that the appropriate investigation completion date is consistently entered into the Complaint Management System." The following was the recommendation from IAID's Complaint [Form], Form [01.28.00] 1.28, Investigations Audit Phase I (#09-003), March 18, 2010, which stated, "It is recommended that Planning and Research Division consider whether Department policy shall be amended to require documentation of the date that the complaint investigation is completed by the investigator to ensure consistency and to allow evaluation of the Department's 150-day goal."

Page 2 of 15 Status on Recommendation No. 1: Implemented. The recommendation was implemented with the publication of Administrative Order No. 8, May 22, 2012, and included in Department Manual Section 3/824. METHODOLOGY The period and population utilized for the audit varied for accurate testing of each objective. Refer to each objective for the specific period and population. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This audit encompassed a total of five objectives, with 11 areas tested. It was evident the Department met the standard with the overall assessments for Objective No. 2, pertaining to the public having accessibility to make complaints. The Department also did well with Objective No. 3, regarding Internal Affairs Group's (IAG's) timeliness in reviewing complaint face sheets, and Objective Nos. 4 and 5, timely completion of the investigations, and proper assignment of the complaint investigation. In regard to the overall assessment for Objective No. 1, pertaining to the selection of Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) personnel, there seems to be a misunderstanding over the requirement for Teams Evaluation Reports (TERs), Form 01.78.04, to be completed for PSB positions, rather than the Transfer Action Item (TAD, Form 01.78.20. The Department considers the IAG position to be a sensitive position, akin to those within Gang Enforcement Details, Narcotics Enforcement Details, Field Training Officer, etc. The TER requires additional steps during the selection process that are not required by the TAI, which is utilized for all the other positions. Table No. 1 summarizes the Department's standards by objective and provides a comparison to the FY 2011/12 audit. This section intentionally left blank

Page 3 of 15 Table No. 1 Summary of Audit and Comparison to Prior Year's Audit OBJECTIVE No. DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT OBJECTIVE 2010/11 PERCENTAGE MEETING THE STANDARD 2013/14 PERCENTAGE MEETING THE STANDARD 1(a) Selection Package - TEAMS Evaluation Report 0/18 (0%) 0/25 (0%) 1(b) Selection Package - Training Evaluation And Management System II Report 6/18 (33%) 0/23 (0%)' 1(c) Sustained Complaints and/or Adverse Judicial Withheld2 0/1 (0%) 2(a) Personnel Complaint Material Available to the Public 293/294 (99%) 293/294 (99%) 2(b) 24-Hour Toll Free Telephone Complaint Hotline/System Monitoring 12/12 (100%) 14/14 (100% ) 2(c) Assessment of Complaint Hotline Recordings 7/7 (100%) 2/2 (100%) 2(d) Assessment of Email Complaint Intake 7/7 (100%) N/A3 2(e) Assessment of Fax Complaint Intake 7/7 (100%) 7/7 (100%) 3 Timeliness of IAG Review of the Face Sheet 45/51 (88%) 4 Timeliness of the Completion of the Investigations 5 Proper Assignment of Complaint Investigations to IAG and Chain of Command DETAILED FINDINGS Objective No. 1(a) Selection Package - TEAMS Evaluation Report Criteria Standards Not Met Performance Assessment Met the Standard 51/51 (100%) 52/52 (100%) Department Manual Section 3/762.80, Commanding Officer's Duties Transfers, states, "For lateral transfers, a TAI, created by TEAMS II, must be completed, or a TER i f a TAI is not generated. A TER is required when selecting sworn personnel for assignments to Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), Force Investigation Division (FID), Field Training Officer (FTO), Gang Enforcement Detail (GED), Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) Program, Narcotics Enforcement Detail (NED) or NARC Major Enforcement Section, Gang and Narcotics Division (GND).4 'Twenty-three of the 25 TEAMS II reports were available for review; therefore, the population for this objective was reduced to 23. 2None of the 18 investigators in the sample had sustained complaints or adverse judicial findings that required consideration or documentation; therefore an assessment was not conducted. 3Currently, the Department does not have a process/procedure for the public to submit complaints via the Department website, lapdonline.org. Therefore, this objective was not assessed. 4Professional Standards Bureau consists of IAG, FID, and Special Operations Division (SOD). Assignments to SOD are not required to have a TER completed (see Recommendation No. 2).

Page 4 of 15 File Maintenance. Each commanding officer must maintain an Area/divisional TER file of all TERs and/or hard copy TAIs completed for transfers and loans. The file must contain the original TER and/or hard copy TAI for each incoming transfer or loan with the officer 's TEAMS II report attached" Department Manual Section 3/763.69, Selections for Limited Tour Assignment to Internal Affairs Group - states, "Managers shall utilize existing Departmental databases, information and documents to assess eligibility for a limited tour assignment to IAG. A Loan/Transfer package, including a TEAMS II Evaluation Report, shall be prepared for all selected candidates indicating that the following documents were reviewed as part of a comprehensive background check: Interview Evaluation/Questions; JAG Loan Rating; TEAMS II report (promotion/paygrade advancement only); Any pending or sustained complaint investigations, via a CITS report; Complaint Index; and, Adverse judicial findings." "Disqualification Loan and Limited Tour Assignment. In most cases, sworn employees who have a sustained complaint in any of the following categories shall be disqualified from consideration for an JAG position: Excessive use o force; False arrest or charge; Improper search or seizure; Sexual harassment; Discrimination; or, Dishonesty. The Commanding Officer, IAG, may decide to select or retain a sworn employee with a sustained complaint in one or more of these categories. However, that decision must be justified on a TEAMS II Evaluation Report and retained in the interview/selection package. Additionally, the consideration of any adverse judicial finding or discipline against a sworn employee for any of the above categories shall also be documented in the TEAMS II Evaluation Report form." A personnel roster of investigators assigned to JAG from April 21, 2013, through March 22, 2014, was obtained from IAG. The 25 IAG investigators included Sergeants II and Detectives II that were identified as having been selected to IAG during the audit period. The 25 IAG selection packages were reviewed to determine whether it contained a TER, per above Department Manual Section 3/763.69. Additionally, the IAG TER/TAI file was reviewed for the same 25 IAG selection TERs, per Department Manual Section 3/762.80. If the selection package and the TER/TAI file contained the TER, the Department met the standards for this objective.

Page 5 of 15 None (0%) of the 25 IAG selection packages or the TER/TAI files contained the IAG selection TERs, and therefore did not meet the standards for this objective. It was found that the TER/TAI files contained TAIs for 23 of the 25 selections.' Although TAIs contain some of the critical inquiries as those in the TER, two of the TAIs were missing documentation that justified the investigators selection into IAG. ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE Internal Affairs Group personnel responsible for the completion of TERs for new hires were unaware that a TER was to be completed. This lack of knowledge resulted in none of the selection packages meeting the standard. The Department has deemed positions at IAG critical enough to require a TER to be completed; not having one completed inhibits the proper documentation to demonstrate the IAG Commanding Officer had a complete review of the selection being made. Upon being notified of the findings, PSB indicated they implemented a Selection/Loan Checklist that will ensure the proper completion of the TERs. Additionally, PSB created the required TERs for the respective selection packages. Objective No. 1(b) Selection Package Training Evaluation and Management System II Report Criteria Department Manual Section 3/762.80, Commanding Officer's Duties Transfers, states, "When an officer transfers or is loaned into a new command, the commanding officer must ensure that the watch commander or officer in charge reviews the officer 's TEAMS II report within ten calendar days from publication of the transfer order or notification of the loan and completes the Transfer Action Item (TAI) or Teams Evaluation Report (TER), Form 01.78.04." Department Manual Section 3/763.68, Selection for Loans to Internal Affairs Group, states, "A Loan/Transfer package must be prepared to assess the eligibility of all selected candidates. As part of this package, a TEAMS II Evaluation Report must be completed to indicate that the following documents were reviewed as part of a comprehensive background check: Current TEAMS II report (promotion/paygrade advancement TEAMS II report only); Transfer Applicant Data Sheet, Form 15.88.00; Standards Based Assessment Lieutenants and Below, Form 01.87.00 (two most recent); Complaint Index, Form 1.80; Any pending or sustained complaint investigations, via a Complaint Information Tracking System (CITS) report; Any other investigations being conducted by IAG; and, Adverse judicial findings." 'The TAI is used to evaluate sworn personnel transferring into a new command.

Page 6 of 15 The population used for Objective No. 1(a) was also used for this objective. Each of the 23 available TEAMS II reports, attached to the TAIs, were reviewed to determine whether they were the proper version of the TEAMS II report, promotion/paygrade advancement version, and was dated within the ten calendar days from the publication date of the transfer order. TEAMS II reports that were dated within the ten calendar days of the publication of the transfer order met the standards for this objective. None (0%) of the 23 IAG selections' TEAMS II reports met the standards for this objective. Each of the TEAMS II reports was the "Final Selection Process/Transfer Process" version and was not dated within the ten calendar days of the date of the transfer order. As with Objective No. 1(a), because the TERs were not completed, the direct effect was that the wrong TEAMS II report versions were attached, and were not within the required time period. Upon being notified of the findings, PSB indicated they implemented a Selection/Loan Checklist that will ensure the proper completion of the TERs, which should prompt the correct TEAMS II report version to be included within the required time frame. Objective No. 1(c) Professional Standards Bureau Sustained Complaints and/or Adverse Judicial Criteria Department Manual Section 3/763.69 - states, "In most cases, sworn employees who have a sustained complaint in any of the following categories shall be disqualified from consideration for an IAG position: Excessive use o force; False arrest or charge; Improper search and seizure,. Sexual harassment; Discrimination; or, Dishonesty The Commanding Officer, IAG, may decide to select or retain a sworn employee with a sustained complaint in one or more of these categories. However, that decision must be justified on a TEAMS II Evaluation Report and retained in the interview/selection package. Additionally, the consideration of any adverse judicial finding or discipline against a sworn employee for any of the above categories shall also be documented in the TEAMS II Evaluation Report form." The population used for Objective No. 1(b) was also used for this objective. Each IAG selections' TEAMS II report was examined to determine if the IAG investigator had an adverse

Page 7 of 15 judicial finding(s), or a sustained disciplinary action(s) for excessive force, false arrest or charge, improper search or seizure, sexual harassment, discrimination, or dishonesty (or any elements relating to the aforementioned) that would have required documentation in a TER.6 One of the 25 selected candidates (Detective II) had a sustained complaint for false arrest (false imprisonment, CF No. 96-1465), which was reviewed for this objective. As stated above in Department Manual Section 3/763.69, the Commanding Officer, IAG, must justify the reason for the selection on a TER. Within the confines of this audit a completed TAI also met the standard for this objective. The one (0%) TER/TAT did not meet the standard for this objective. The TAI did not contain documentation with indication that the commanding officer justified the selection, or considered the sustained complaint. As the case with Objective Nos. 1(a) and 1(b), had the TERs been completed during the selection process, it may have prompted the reviewer to key in on this requirement. Objective No. 2(a) Personnel Complaint Material Available to the Public Criteria Department Manual Section 3/811.20, Community Reporting of a Complaint or Employee Misconduct, states, "Commanding officers shall ensure that a supply of Complaint of Employee Misconduct forms (Forms 01.81.06, 1.81.7, 01.81.08, 01.81.09, 01.81.13, 01.81.14 and 01.81.15) with postage-paid, preaddressed business reply envelopes marked "ATTN: Internal Affairs Group," and Personnel Complaint Information pamphlets, Forms 1.81.3, 01.81.10, 01.81.17, 01.81.18, and 01.81.19, are maintained at a location accessible to the public 24 hours per day at all Area Stations, Police Administration Building, and any other police facility accessible to the public." Department Manual Section 3/812, Community Complaint and Commendation Poster, states, "The following entities have responsibility for ensuring that Community Complaint and Commendation Posters, Form 01.81.28, are on display to the public throughout the Department and City Council field offices: Area commanding officers shall ensure posters are displayed at their facilities where they are visible to the public and provide posters to all City Council field offices within their Areas." "All bureau and group commanding officers whose commands are accessible to the public shall ensure that the posters are displayed." 6As indicated in Objective No.1(a), none of the investigators had a TER in the selection package to review or in the 1AG TER file. Therefore, the TAI was used in lieu of the TER for the 23 lag selections, as it contained the same critical inquiries as those within the TER. 7TAIs also require a review of the employee's complaint history. Any sustained complaint regarding the identified complaint categories requires documentation of a review and analysis, see Form 01.78.20.

Page 8 of 15 Audit Division made unannounced visits to all 21 geographical Areas. The visits were conducted to determine whether complaint materials were made available to the public. The complaint materials were located in the lobbies of each station. Materials not displayed were requested from front desk personnel. If personnel provided the materials upon request, the standards were met for this objective. The following is a list of complaint materials that are required to be at the front desk of each geographic Area: 1. Community Complaint and Commendation Poster, Form No. 01.81.28; 2. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.03 (English/Spanish); 3. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.10 (Chinese/Korean); 4. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.17 (Tagalog); 5. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.18 (Japanese); 6. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.19 (Vietnamese); 7. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.06 (English); 8. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.07 (Spanish); 9. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.08 (Tagalog); 10 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.09 (Japanese); 11 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.13 (Vietnamese); 12 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.14 (Korean); 13 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.15 (Chinese); and, 14. Professional Standards Bureau Return Address Business Reply Envelope. There were a total of 294 complaint materials required for the 21 geographical Areas. Two hundred ninety-three (99%) of the 294 required complaint materials met the standards for this objective. The one missing complaint material was the Community Complaint and Commendation Poster at Devonshire Community Police Station.8 Objective No. 2(b) 24-Hour Toll Free Telephone Complaint Hotline/System Monitoring Criteria Intradepartmental Correspondence, Form 15.02.00, June 8, 2007, Methodology for the 24-Hour Toll-Free Telephone Complaint Hotline Staffed at Internal Affairs Group, Complaint 8 Devonshire Area was notified of the missing item and was in the process of submitting a requisition to have it supplied.

Page 9 of 15 Classification Unit (CCU), states, "The Primary IAG 24-hour recorded complaint telephone line is staffed and answered by the Police Officer II (POs II) assigned to the CCU The POs II staff the recorded telephone line Monday through Friday from 0700 hours 1900 hours, excluding weekends and holidays." The Department currently operates a 24-hour toll-free telephone complaint hotline that is staffed during normal business hours by IAG personnel. During non-business hours, the Complaint Hotline is transferred to a Voiceprint System. Audit Division monitored the Complaint Hotline for Deployment Period No. 4, 2014. Seven dates were randomly selected: April 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 26 and 27. Two calls were made at various times during business and non-business hours on each of the selected days. If the call was answered by IAG personnel or forwarded to the Voiceprint System (and IAG personnel returned the call), it met the standards for this objective. Each (100%) of the 14 calls met the standards for this objective. Objective No. 2(c) Assessment of Complaint Hotline Recordings Criteria Intradepartmental Correspondence, April 24, 2007, Internal Affairs Group 24-Hour Recorded Complaint Line Protocols, states, "The Primary IAG 24-hour recorded complaint line will be answered by Police Officers II assigned to the CCU When a member of the public desires to initiate a personnel complaint, he/she shall be transferred to a CCU Supervisor, and the telephone call will automatically be recorded on one of the secondary lines connected to the Voiceprint System." Three dates in March 2014 (11, 14 and 19) were randomly selected to review IAG's Voiceprint System recordings to determine if complaints were initiated when callers reported misconduct. Audit Division reviewed all calls on the specified dates and obtained copies of the Voiceprint Complaint Intake Log and copies of any corresponding Complaint Forms pertaining to the dates identified for comparison. Internal Affairs Group's Voiceprint System indicated 25 calls were received on the selected dates, of which two of the calls made allegations of misconduct against Department employees. If misconduct was reported during a recorded call and a complaint was initiated, it met the standard for this objective.

Page 10 of 15 Both (100%) of the calls met standards for this objective.' Objective No. 2(d) Assessment of Email Complaint Intake Criteria Department Manual Section 3/810.05, Complaints Conditions of Acceptance, states, "Complaints shall be accepted from any source: written, verbal, in person or telephonic (or TTY), by mail, facsimile transmission, or electronic means, or anonymously; at the Police Administration Building; any bureau, Area station or substation." Currently, the Department has no centralized method for receiving complaints by email therefore, this objective was not testable. In 2003, the LAPD website, LAPDOnline.org, contained a commendation/complaint link that allowed the public to submit commendations and complaints online. In early 2007, the intake link, for unknown reasons, was displaying error messages and was no longer being maintained. The link was subsequently removed with the approval of an IAG Officer-in-Charge (OIC). Discussions between LAPD Online Section, OIG, and IAG involved creating an email commendation/complaint intake link that would be the responsibility of IAG. Internal Affairs Group was receptive to the electronic Complaint Management System intake process. However, to this date, LAPDOnline.org does not have an email commendation/complaint intake link for submitting complaints online. Not assessed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of the commendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissions of commendations and complaints. Objective No. 2(e) Assessment of Fax Complaints Intake Department Manual Section 3/810.05, Complaints Conditions of Acceptance, states, "Complaints shall be accepted from any source: written, verbal, in person or telephonic (or TTY), by mail, facsimile transmission, or electronic means, or anonymously; at the Police Administration Building; any bureau, Area station or substation." 9The two complaints initiated were: CF Nos. 14-00065 and 14-00675.

Page 11 of 15 The same randomized dates used in Objective No. 2(b) were used for this objective. Faxes were sent once per day. Audit Division faxed IAG and requested that JAG acknowledge receipt of the fax. Faxes for which IAG acknowledged, met the standard for the objective. Each (100%) of the seven faxes to IAG met the standards for this objective. Objective No. 3 Timeliness of IAG Review of the Face Sheet Performance Information Criteria Department Manual Section 3/816.05, Internal Affairs Group's Responsibilities, states, "Internal Affairs Group shall promptly review every complaint, Form 01.28.00, determine whether the complaint will be investigated by IAG or by the employee's command, and promptly notify and forward the complaint to the affected entities for appropriate action." Audit Division obtained a population of 316 complaint investigations that were closed in February 2014 and randomly selected a statistically valid sample of 52 complaint investigations.' The 52 complaint investigations consisted of 34 that were conducted by the chain of command (COC) and 18 that were conducted by IAG. The complaint investigations were reviewed along with a data run of pertinent dates that was generated by JAG. The date the complaint was received by IAG, via the Complaint Management System, was compared with the JAG classification date. This objective was conducted as a performance assessment as Department policy indicates that JAG "shall promptly review and determine whether the complaint will be investigated by JAG or the employee's command..." The policy does not define "promptly," therefore this objective was tested as a performance assessment only. Audit Division has in prior audits defined "promptly" as within ten working days. Internal Affairs Group has incorporated a self-imposed timeframe of ten days to review and classify the Complaint Form once it is received. This objective reviewed the information and provided a breakdown using the ten workday parameter from the time IAG receives the Complaint Form. 10 The sample size was obtained by using the one-tail test with a 95 percent confidence level with an error rate of five percent.

Page 12 of 15 Table No. 2 IAG Face Sheets Reviewed and Classified Number of Work Days to Review and Classify 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Total Cases Complaints 42 9 0 1 52 Objective No. 4 Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations Criteria Department Manual Section 3/824, Completion of Complaint Investigation, states, "It is the goal of the Department to complete most complaint investigations within five months of the Complaint Form being received by Internal Affairs Group (JAG). Notwithstanding that goal, all efforts should be undertaken to ensure the entire complaint process is completed within the limitations established by state law and the City Charter." This objective reviewed 50 of the 52 sample complaint investigations." Audit Division reviewed the investigations for completion within five months. The five-month window began on the date the complaint was reported to an uninvolved supervisor and was considered completed when the investigation was approved by the OIC. Note: If over 50 percent of all complaint investigations were completed within five months, the Department met the standard for this objective. Twenty-Six (52%) of the 50 investigations met the standard for this objective. The remaining 24 investigations exceeded the five-month completion date ranging from ten to 203 days late.' There was no documentation that existed to explain the extended amount of time to investigate the complaint. Table No. 3 provides a breakdown of the completion rates for IAG and COC investigations. Table No. 4 provides a breakdown of the above number of days that the investigation was not investigated within five months. "Tolling is a legal doctrine which allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period set forth by a statute. Two investigations (one COC and one TAG) were tolled and a determination for the completion of the complaint investigations could not be made, and therefore were removed from this objective. 12None of the complaints fell out of statute for their respective nature of allegation.

Page 13 of 15 Table No. 3 Investigations Completed Within Five Months Investigating Entity Complaint Sample Size No. Investigated within five months No. Not Investigated within five months IAG 20 4 (20%) 16 (80%) COC 30 22 (73%) 8 (27%) Total Cases 50 26 (52%) 24 (48%) Table No. 4 Investigations Completed Beyond Five Months Investigating Entity Days Late 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 Not Investigated in five months IAG 3 3 3 7 0 16 (67%) COC 1 2 4 0 1 8 (33%) Total Cases 4 5 7 7 1 24 (100%) Department policy states that the Department's goal is to complete most complaint investigations within five months. Audit Division defined "most" as greater than 50 percent. Internal Affairs Group concurred with AD's findings and further explained that during the audit period, it experienced a shortage of investigators with an approximate vacancy rate of 30 percent. With respect to COC investigations, there was no indication as to what contributed to the extended delay in investigating their complaints. Objective No. 5 Proper Assignment of Complaint Investigations to IAG and Chain Of Command Criteria Department Infoweb Organization Organization Information Professional Standards Bureau, Internal Affairs Group Functions, states, "Internal Affairs Group-Investigative Responsibility. When fully staffed IAG is responsible for investigating the following complaints: All civil suits or claims for damages involving on-duty conduct by Department employees,. All civil suits or claims for damages involving off-duty conduct that allege physical violence, threats of physical violence or domestic violence by an employee; An employee who has been arrested or criminally charged with a felony or high grade misdemeanor; Any unauthorized use o force (if not documented in NCUOF); Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability, including improper ethnic remarks and gender bias; Unlawful search; Unlawful seizure (including false imprisonment and false arrest); Dishonesty; Improper behavior involving narcotics or drugs; Sexual misconduct; Domestic violence; Theft;

Page 14 of 15 Acts of retaliation or retribution against an employee or the public; Incidents in which a member of the public is charged by an officer with interfering, resisting arrest (California Penal Code Section 148), assault on an officer, or disorderly conduct, and the prosecutor's office notifies the Department either that it is dismissing the charge based upon officer credibility, or a judge dismissed the charge based upon officer credibility. Additionally, IAG will investigate all incidents in which the Department receives written notification from a prosecuting agency in a criminal case when there has been: An order suppressing evidence because of any constitutional violation involving potential misconduct by an employee; A judicial finding of employee misconduct made in the course of a judicial proceeding,. and, A request by a federal or state judge, magistrate, or prosecutor that a misconduct investigation be initiated against an employee, pursuant to information developed during a judicial proceeding before a judge or magistrate, or during the course of an official proceeding in which that judge or prosecutor has been involved." Department Manual Section 3/837.20 Investigation Responsibility General, states, "Investigative responsibility for the Department's unified investigation shall be as follows: Low-grade misdemeanor-the employee's Area/division of assignment; Exception: When a low -grade misdemeanor results from a traffic collision, the criminal investigation shall be completed by a traffic supervisor, bureau of occurrence. High -grade misdemeanor or felony-at the direction of the Commanding Officer, Internal Affairs Group; Note: High -grade misdemeanors include: Petty theft; Dangerous Weapons' Control Law; Traffic manslaughter; Indecent exposure; Child molesting; Contributing,. Lewd conduct; Lewd loitering; All misdemeanor sex crimes; and, Misdemeanor narcotic/drug offenses. All other misdemeanor crimes are low -grade." The sample of 52 complaint investigations used in Objective No. 3 was also used for this objective. Nineteen complaint investigations were assigned to IAG and 33 complaint investigations were assigned to COC. If the complaint investigations were properly assigned to IAG and COC, it met the standards for this objective.

Page 15 of 15 Each (100%) of 52 complaint investigations met the standards for this objective. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of the commendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissions of commendations and complaints. 2. Given the sensitive nature of the SOD assignment, it is recommended that PPD consult with appropriate Department command staff, and consider the inclusion of SOD personnel under the requirement to have a TER completed during the selection process. ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE The audit report was provided to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Bureau, and the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, both whom were in general agreement with the findings.

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE ADDENDUM November 13, 2014 1.13 TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division FROM: Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Bureau SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT, FOURTH QUARTER, FISCAL YEAR 2013/2014 A review of the Complaint Process Audit, Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/2014, has revealed the need to respond to two Objectives contained in the audit. The two areas requiring a response are Objective No. 1(a) Selection Package TEAMS Evaluation Report (TER), as well as Objective No. 4 Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations. Delineated below are the systems that have been established to ensure full compliance with the requirement to complete a TER for those selected for positions in Internal Affairs Group (IAG). Additionally, it is important to provide an explanation regarding completion of investigations within the five month goal when reviewing the results of the Audit that was conducted. There is no disagreement with the results that were obtained by the Audit; however, with the greater emphasis that has been placed on this objective by the current command at Professional Standards Bureau (PSB), significant improvement has been achieved in this area in investigations completed by JAG. Objective No. 1(a) Selection Package TEAMS Evaluation Report As part of the change of command that occurred in May 2013, the Commanding Officer (C/O), PSB, assumed the selections of IAG personnel. The completion of selection/transfer documents was previously handled by an officer assigned to LAG. The Audit sampling occurred during this transition and as a result, the TER's were not completed for newly selected personnel. Prior to receiving additional training, PSB personnel believed that the Transfer Action Item (TAI) satisfied the TER requirement. Once PSB became aware of the Audit findings, additional training occurred and PSB implemented a Selection/Loan Checklist that will ensure proper completion of TER's and TAI's for all selections of personnel. This checklist has been utilized for all subsequent IAG personnel selections. It is anticipated that additional audits will reveal full compliance in completion of TER's. Additionally, the C/O, PSB, now ensures that several audits of selection packages are completed to ensure that all required documentation are contained in the selection packages.

Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division Page 2 Objective No. 4 Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations The Audit sampled a very small number of completed investigations. Since assuming command of PSB in May 2013, there have been vast improvements in many areas, specifically, in the timeliness and quality of IAG investigations. A new reporting format was introduced which has led to an expedition completion of investigations. Currently, the percentage of all cases investigated by PSB that are completed within the five month compliance goal is as follows: Administrative Investigation Division 2013 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 15.4% 2104 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 79.2% (583 of 736 total cases) Criminal Investigation Division 2013 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 37.0% 2104 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 57.9% (237 of 409 total cases) Combined this represents an overall compliance rate of 68.5% for all investigations completed by lag within the five month goal, as compared to 26.2% compliance rate from the previous YTD. This figure represents a significant improvement from the results obtained (20%) as a result of the Audit and the sampling of twenty cases that were used. Of the twenty cases examined, all but one of the cases was reported prior to May 2013. The one case that was reported after May 2013, met the standard for compliance. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Lieutenant Wayne Lightfoot, PSB, at 213-473-8892. DEBRA J. MCCARTHY, Deputy Chief Commanding Officer Professional Standards Bureau