HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4085
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4085)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/23/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Response to Grand Jury Report
Title: Approval of Response to Grand Jury Report on Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review, provide input, and approve the following response to
the 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Law Enforcement Public
Complaint Procedures” (“Grand Jury Report”). A copy of the response is included as
Attachment A.
Background
On June 18, 2013, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released the Grand Jury Report
which surveyed various municipal law enforcement jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to
determine their respective complaint procedures. The report was released publicly on June 24,
2013.
A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment B.
Discussion
The Grand Jury Report culminates in thirty (30) findings and recommendations (see pages 9
through 15 of the Report). Two (2) of those recommendations related to law enforcement
complaint practices of the Palo Alto Police Department. The following discussion responds to
the recommendations.
Recommendation 17 – “The Palo Alto Police Department should make their complaint materials
freely available in hard copy in their lobby.”
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Response: Agree. On June 26, 2013, the Palo Alto Police Department adopted this change.
Complaint materials are now freely available in hard copy in the police department lobby.
Recommendation 18 – “The Palo Alto Police Department should make multilingual complaint
materials freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.”
Response: Agree. On June 26, 2013, the Palo Alto Police Department adopted this change.
Multilingual complaint materials are now freely available in hard copy form in the police
department lobby.
Resource Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact resulting from this report.
Policy Implications
This report is consistent with Council policy to ensure the Palo Alto Police Department’s
complaint procedure is both accessible and transparent.
Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for this report.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A - Response Letter to Grand Jury (PDF)
ATTACHMENT B - Grand Jury Final Report (PDF)
o o
-.»..
*«•>Jorl 27 /iff||:2|13 jl....•'':'"°
June 24,2013
Honorable Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear MayorScharff and Members ofthe CityCouncil:
The 2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report,Law
Enforcement Public Complaint Procedures.
California Penal Code §933(c)requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or
department which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the
Presiding Judge ofthe Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under
the control ofthe governing body. California Penal Code §933.05 contains guidelines for responses to
Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this letter.
1. As stated in PenalCode §933.05(a),attached,you are required to "Agree"or"Disagree" with
each APPLICABLE Findinq(s)17&18 .Ifyou disagree, inwhole orpart,you must include an
explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code §933.05(b),attached, you are required to respond to each
APPLICABLE Recommendation^17 &18 .withoneof four possible actions.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Brian C.Walsh,Presiding Judge,
Santa Clara County Superior Court,191 North First Street,San Jose,CA 95113,no later than
Wednesday,September 25,2013.
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file withthe Clerkofthe Court.
SPM:dsa
Enclosures (2)
Sincerely,/^/$4^r^
steven p.Mcpherson
Foreperson
2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury
cc:Mr.James Keene,City Manager,City ofPalo Alto
ChiefDennis Burns,Palo Alto PoliceDepartment
7iN 2012-2013 SANTm CLARA COUNTY |"I L fc\y CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT JUN u m
DAVJDH.YAMASAKI_JChtefB(oc»rtlvBOHie8r/CIefk
LAW ENFORCEMENT PUBLIC COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Summary
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury)reviewed and evaluated the
procedures and methods utilized by local law enforcement agencies in receiving
complaints from members ofthe public involving law enforcement agencies.
The State of California requires that each local law enforcement agency establish a
procedure to investigatecomplaints from members ofthe public againsttheirpersonnel
and make a written description of their procedure available to the public.This report
evaluatesthe complaint procedures employed bythe Office ofthe Sheriff and municipal
law enforcement agencies in Santa Clara County,notes differences among jurisdictions,
and offers suggestions for improvement.
Background
The function ofthe Grand Jury isto examine aspects ofcounty and city government and
special districts'operations to ensure that the best interests of the public are being
served.The Grand Jury studied the procedures employed by law enforcement agencies
in accepting complaints from members ofthe public about their officers or deputies.
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1) requires that entities that employ peace
officers establish a procedure to:
•investigate complaints from the public against their personnel,and
•make a written description of the complaint procedure available to the public1
Law enforcement functions in the county are performed by police departments in the
cities of Campbell,Gilroy,Los Altos,Milpitas,Morgan Hill,Mountain View,Palo Alto,
San Jose,Santa Clara,Sunnyvale,the Town of Los Gatos,and by the Office of the
Sheriff in the unincorporated county areas and tothe contracted cities ofCupertino,Los
Altos Hills,and Saratoga.The Town of Los Gatos provides law enforcement services to
the CityofMonte Sereno.
Two cities,Palo Alto and San Jose, have an Independent Police Auditor (IPA).IPAs
provide civilian oversight of the police department.The work and functions of the IPA
are beyond the scope of this report.This report focuses on the practices and
procedures of the law enforcement agencies regarding the complaint procedure.
California PenalCode §832.5
w o
Methodology
Duringitsinvestigation, the Grand Jury:
•Distributed a survey to the Officeofthe Sheriffand to 11 municipal law
enforcement agencies within the county,with follow-up e-mail clarifications when
necessary
•Compiled and analyzed survey results
•Reviewed California Penal Code Sections 148.6,832.5,and 832.7
•Reviewed California Civil Code Section 47.5
• Reviewed on-line information available to the public relating to filing complaints
• Visitedthe surveyed law enforcement agencies between December 2012
and May 2013 to acquire their respective hardcopycomplaint materials available
to the public
• Reviewed the law enforcement agencies'procedures for receivinga complaint
•Reviewed IPA Annual Reports from the cities of San Jose2 and Palo Alto3
Discussion
The Complaint Procedure Overview
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1), shown in Appendix A,defines the
requirements of a complaint procedure,which requires that each entity establish a
procedure to investigate complaints against peace officers and make a written
description ofthe procedure available to the public.
The Grand Jury surveyed the Office of the Sheriff and municipal law enforcement
jurisdictions in the county to determine their respective complaint procedures.4 The
survey responses revealed that the complaint procedure varied by jurisdiction.
Differences noted were:(a)access to materials in hard copy or on-line;(b)the
existence of a complaint form;and (c)the availability of multilingual materials.
(Hereafter,"complaint materials"includes complaint procedure and complaint form.)
Additionally,in the course of reviewing the jurisdictions'complaint materials,the Grand
Jury discoveredthat advisorywarnings to potential complainants citedlegal advisories
that have been found unconstitutional byvarious courts.
2http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=200
3http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/auditor.asp
4Jurisdictions surveyed were:Campbell,Gilroy,Los Altos,Milpitas,Morgan Hill,Mountain View,Palo Alto,San Jose,
SantaClara,Sunnyvale,the Town ofLosGatos,andtheOffice ofthe Sheriff.The cities ofCupertino,Los Altos Hills,
and Saratoga werenotsurveyed sincetheirlawenforcementdutiesare performed undercontract tothe Office of the
Sheriff.The City of Monte Serenowasnot surveyed sincetheir law enforcement dutiesare performed under contract
to the Town of Los Gatos.
n rs
Written Complaint Procedure
All jurisdictions surveyed responded that they have a procedure,as required by the
Penal Code,to receive complaints from the public.Some jurisdictions make their
procedures available on-line or inhard copy form.The City of Mountain View,however,
does not make its written procedure available to the public,as required by the Penal
Code.
Complaint Forms
Jurisdictions are not required to provide a specific complaint form.However,a
complaint from the public is more likely to result in a thorough investigation if the
complaint includes all relevant information. A detailed complaint form can provide
guidance inthis process.
The Grand Jury visited every jurisdiction's office(s),as well as theirwebsites.Every
jurisdiction,except the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara, had a specific form for a
complainant to complete.In lieu of a form,the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara
described in their respective procedures how and what information to include in a
complaint.
The Grand Jury believes that either by the procedure or the form itself,the complainant
should be clearly advised regarding what information to include in their complaint. For
instance,some jurisdictions'complaint materials make it clear to the complainant that
dates,badge numbers,witnesses,and other specific information are helpful to the
investigation. Conversely, the complaint form of San Jose and the on-line version of
Sunnyvale's complaint form provide little guidance to the complainant about what
information the jurisdiction needs for its investigation.5
Public Access to Complaint Materials
Asdiscussed above,all jurisdictions have a written complaint procedure,but Mountain
View does not make their procedure available to the public.When the Grand Jury
examined each jurisdiction's website and visited the jurisdiction's office(s),it found the
following,as shown in Table 1:
•Some have a complaint form.
• Some make their complaint materialsavailable only ontheirwebsite.
• Some provide a hard copy of their complaint materials at their office.
•Some make their complaint materials available onlyupon request.
5Notably,the San Jose IPA's complaint form iswell detailed in this regard.However,a complainant might complain
tothe San Jose Police Department ratherthan the IPA.
-
Public Access to
Complaint
Procedure
Public Access to
Complaint Form
*"In lobby"means freely available without request in hard copy
Table 1.Public Access to Complaint Materials
form
Many in the public may prefer to gain access to complaint materials via the internet
rather than to physically go to the agency to secure a specific form or document.Of
note,the City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety maintains two,independent,
not mutually linked websites,www.sunnvvaledps.com/and
www.sunnvvale.ca.gov/Departments/PublicSafetv.aspx.The first contains their
complaint procedure;the second contains a complaint form.
For those in the public without easy internet access,using a hard copy form may be
theironlyalternative. As set forth inTable 1 above,some jurisdictions providehardcopy
complaint materials in the lobby of their office(s)and some provide the hardcopy
complaint materials only upon request.In the City of Milipitas, a requested complaint
form can only be obtained from the on-duty watch commander,a practice that some
may find intimidating. The City of Mountain View does not make its complaint
procedure available to the public in any form.
Law enforcement agencies should make complaint materials available both on their
website and freely available in hard copy form in the lobby of their office(s).
f~\r\
Availability of Multilingual Complaint Materials
Although there is no legal requirement to do so, and considering the language diversity
in Santa Clara County,providing complaint materials in English,as well as other
languages representative of the demographics of the jurisdiction,would be essential to
a robust complaint process.The Grand Jury survey and investigation revealed that not
all jurisdictions provide multilingual complaint materials,as demonstrated inTable 2.
Multilingual Access
to Complaint
Procedure
Multilingual Access
to Complaint Form
On-line
Hard Copy
On-line
Hard Copy
Jurisdiction In
lobby"
On
request
In
lobby-
On
request
Campbell ;NO,.No No No;;No :m
Gilroy :,Noj:
1""'••I'lV
Yes No ;;M Yes
Los Altos Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes n/a
Los Gatos Yes .No :#,•,•-'No;;.:m
Milpitas Yes Yes :m:\>,•i j Yes
Morgan Hill :Nok;i8$fc-l r-m-Ma::,:WIS ;#
Mountain View NoV life-;No 'No:;-iNiS p.
Palo Alto Yes rw H6 Yes ';No;||r :VNo
San Jose'Yes »v :.:%''';Np;:No;!.;:N0
City of Santa Clara Yes life NO 'Wr\:No^m
Office of the Sheriff Yes :No No Yes "Nof"»
Sunnyvale Yes No No
...—
Yes No No
*"In lobby"means freely available without request in hard copy form
Table 2.Multilingual Access to Complaint Materials
During the Grand Jury's investigation,the City of Los Altos updated its complaint
materials and made them available on-line and in hard copy form in English,Spanish,
and Chinese,which appears to reflect the demographics of its community. The Grand
Jury applauds the quick actions of the City of Los Altos to provide multilingual access to
its complaint materials.
The City of Palo Alto and the Office of the Sheriff allow on-line translation of all
complaint materials.
The City of San Jose's IPAhas complaint materials available in English,Spanish,Vietnamese,Braille,and via
audio recording
o o
The cities of Milpitas,San Jose7,Santa Clara,and Sunnyvale,and the Town of Los
Gatos,offer some on-line translation of their complaint materials,but the Grand Jury
found that the translation capability is not comprehensive because not all of their
complaint materials are multilingual.
The cities of Campbell, Gilroy,Morgan Hill,and MountainViewdo not offeror allowany
on-line translation capability of complaint materials.
Only the City of Los Altos makes multilingual complaint materials in hard copy form
freely available in the lobby of their office.The cities of Gilroy and Milipitas provide
access to hard copy multilingual complaint materials only upon request.The cities of
Campbell, Morgan Hill,Mountain View, Palo Alto,San Jose,Santa Clara, Sunnyvale,
the Town of Los Gatos,and the Office of the Sheriff do not provide multilingual hard
copy complaint materials.
Criminal Advisory to Complainant
California Penal Code Section 148.6 made it a misdemeanor to file a false allegation
against a peace officer.Section 148.6 also required that the entity providean "advisory"
for the complainant to read and sign.That advisory specified that the complainant has
a right to make the complaint and described the law enforcement agency's
responsibilities regarding the handling of the complaint. In addition, the advisory
admonished the complainant that:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE.
IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE,
YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.!
However,in November of 2005,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared California
Penal Code Section 148.6(a)(1)to be unconstitutional.Specifically,the Court held that
the statute was unlawful because it only criminalized false allegations against a peace
officer but did not criminalize knowingly false assertions in support ofa peace officer,or
made by a peace officer or witness during the course of a misconduct investigation.8
The case was appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court, which declined to review the
decision.As a result,the federal court has found California Penal Code Section
148.6(a)(1)to be unconstitutional and,thus,it cannot be enforced.Continued reference
to this unenforceable code provision presents a risk that citizens will be intimidated from
filing legitimate complaints. As a result, problems may go unrecognized and
uncorrected.
7 ibid
8See Chaker v,Crogan (2005),428 F.3d 1215.On May 15,2006,the United StatesSupreme Court
denied a petition for review .
n.r\
The cities of Morgan Hill,Mountain View,and Sunnyvale include the advisory language
in their complaint materials indicating that itisa crime forthe complainant tomakefalse
allegations against a peace officer.In light of the use of this advisory being held
unconstitutional,the Grand Jury recommends the removal of the California Penal Code
Section 148.6 advisory language from allcomplaint materials.
Civil Advisory to Complainant
Civil Code Section 47.5 was enacted to allow a peace officer to "bring an action for
defamation against an individual who has filed a complaint with that officer's employing
agency alleging misconduct,criminal conduct, or incompetence,if that complaint is
false, the complaint was made with knowledgethat it was false and that it was made
with spite,hatred,or ill will.Knowledge thatthe complaint was false may be proved by a
showing that the complainant had no reasonable grounds to believethe statement was
trueand thatthe complainant exhibited a reckless disregardforascertaining the truth."
Unlike the criminal advisory contained in Penal Code Section 148.6,entities were never
required to advise potential complainants about this statute.The California Court of
Appeal,the state's intermediate appellate court,has reached conflicting conclusions
regarding the constitutionality of Civil Code Section 47.5, with the most recent decision
holding that the law is valid. Lower federal courts,however,have found the statute
unconstitutional.The City ofMorgan Hill andthe Office ofthe Sheriff retain language in
their complaint materials nearly identical to the above statute.Regardless,the civil
advisory isnotmandatedand continued referencetothiscode provision of questionable
enforceability presents a risk that citizens will be intimidated from filing legitimate
complaints.As a result,problems may go unrecognized and uncorrected.The City of
Morgan Hill and the Office ofthe Sheriff should remove this civil advisory from their
complaint materials.
Conclusion
California Penal Code Section 832.5 requires entities that employ peace officers to
establish a procedure:
• Toinvestigatecomplaints from the public againsttheirpersonnel
•To make a written description ofthe complaint procedure available tothe public
The Grand Jury reviewed and assessed the procedures established bythe Office of the
Sheriff and the municipal law enforcement agencies within the county for receiving
complaints regarding their personnel.The report was prepared using the responsesof
a survey addressed to and answered by 12 jurisdictions, email clarifications when
necessary,a review of their websites,and on-site visits to their offices.
All law enforcement agencies surveyed have a procedure to address complaints from
the public.Through agencies'responses,web searches,and on-site visits, the Grand
Jury determined thatthe availability tothe public ofthe complaint procedure varied by
jurisidiction.Differences between agency were: (a)access to complaint materials in
hard copy form or on-line;(b)the existence ofa complaint form;and (c)the availability
of multilingual complaint materials.
\y W
The Grand Jury recommends that agencies make their complaint materials - complaint
procedure and complaint form-available on-line and freely available in hard copy form
in their lobby.Additionally,the Grand Jury recommends that agencies make their
complaint materials available inmultiple languages reflectiveoftheir community.
The Grand Jury noted that the cities of Campbell and Santa Clara do not provide
complaint forms.Complaint forms,when they exist, vary widely among agencies.With
the goal of collecting all relevant complaint information,the Grand Jury recommends
that all agencies make available a detailed complaint form on-line and freely available in
hard copy form intheir lobby.
The Grand Jury found that the complaint materials of some agencies include reference
to California Penal Code Section148.6,which has been held unconstitutional and/or
language similar to California Civil Code Section 47.5,which has been called into
question.Continued reference to these code provisions presents a riskthat citizens will
be intimidated and deterred from from filing legitimate complaints. Asa result,problems
may go unidentifed and uncorrected.
The Grand Jury recommends that offending agencies remove reference to California
Penal Code Section 148.6 and/or language similarto California Civil Code Section 47.5
from their complaint materials.
8
n r^
Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1
The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in
hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 1a
The Campbell Police Department should make their complaint procedure available on
line.
Recommendation 1b
The Campbell Police Department should make a complaint form available on-line and
also freely available inhard copy formintheirlobby.
Finding 2
The Campbell Police Department makes their complaint procedure available only in
English.
Recommendation 2
The Campbell Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 3
The Gilroy Police Department makes their complaint materials available only upon
request.
Recommendation 3
The Gilroy Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line
and also freely available inhard copyform intheir lobby.
Finding 4
The Gilroy Police Department makes their multilingual complaint materials available
only upon request.
Recommendation 4
The Gilroy Police Department should make their multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
VJ w
Finding 5
The Los Altos Police Department makes all of their multilingual complaint materials
available on-lineand also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 5
None
Finding 6
The Los Altos Police Department complaint form includes reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Recommendation 6
The Los Altos Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint form.
Finding 7
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department does not make all of their complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 7
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make their complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 8
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department complaint materials are only available
in English.
Recommendation 8
The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department should make multilingual complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 9
The MilpitasPolice Department does not make allof their complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
10
r>r\
Recommendation 9
The Milpitas Police Department should make their complaint materials available on-line
and also freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 10
The Milpitas Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 10
The Milpitas Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 11
The Morgan Hill Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 11
The Morgan Hill Police Department should make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 12
The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials are available onlyinEnglish.
Recommendation 12
The Morgan Hill Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 13
The Morgan Hill Police Department complaint materials include reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory and language
that mirrorsthe California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
Recommendation 13
The Morgan Hill Police Department should remove reference to the unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 advisory and the language that mirrors the
California Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials.
11
<J <J
Finding 14
The Mountain View Police Department does not make all of their complaint materials
available on-lineand also freely available intheir lobby inhard copy form.
Recommendation 14
The Mountain View Police Department should make their complaint materials available
on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 15
The Mountain View PoliceDepartment complaint materials are available only in English.
Recommendation 15
The Mountain View Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 16
The Mountain View Police Department complaint materials include reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory.
Recommendation 16
The Mountain View Police Department should remove reference tothe unconstitutional
California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their complaint materials.
Finding 17
The Palo Alto Police Department does not make their complaint materials freely
available in hard copyform in theirlobby.
Recommendation 17
The Palo Alto Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available
in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 18
The Palo Alto Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials freely
available in hard copy form in their lobby.
12
O r>
Recommendation 18
The Palo Alto Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials freely
available inhard copyform intheir lobby.
Finding 19
The San Jose Police Department complaint form provides little guidance to the
complainant about what information is needed.
Recommendation 19
The San Jose Police Department should add content guidance to their complaintform.
Finding 20
The San Jose Police Department does not make alloftheir complaintmaterialsfreely
available inhard copy form inalloftheir lobbies.
Recommendation 20
TheSan Jose Police Department should make their complaint materials freely available
inhard copy form inalltheirlobbies.
Finding 21
The San Jose Police Department does not make all of their multilingual complaint
materials available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in all theirlobbies.
Recommendation 21
The San Jose Police Department should make all of their multilingual complaint
materials available on-line andalso freely available in hard copy form in all their lobbies.
Finding 22
The Santa Clara Police Department does not make all complaint materials available on
line andalso freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Recommendation 22
The Santa Clara Police Department should make all complaint materials available on
line andalso freely available in hard copy form in theirlobby.
13
<J o
Finding 23
The Santa Clara Police Department does not make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 23
The Santa Clara Police Department should make multilingual complaint materials
available on-line and also freely available in hard copy form in their lobby.
Finding 24
The Office ofthe Sheriff does not make their complaint materials freely available in hard
copy form inalltheir lobbies.
Recommendation 24
The Office of the Sheriff should make their complaint materials freely available in hard
copy form inall their lobbies.
Finding 25
The Office ofthe Sheriff does not make multilingual complaint materials freely available
in hard copy forminall their lobbies.
Recommendation 25
The Office ofthe Sheriff should make multilingual complaint materials freely available in
hard copy form inall their lobbies.
Finding 26
The Office of the Sheriff complaint materials include language that mirrors California
Civil Code Section 47.5 civil advisory.
Recommendation 26
The Office of the Sheriff should remove the language that mirrors California Civil Code
Section 47.5 civil advisory from their complaint materials.
Finding 27
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety on-line complaint form provides little
guidance to the complainant about what information is needed.
14
r^r>
Recommendation 27
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should add content guidance to their on
line complaint form.
Finding 28
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make all of their complaint
materials available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated bythe Cityof
Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 28
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make their complaint materials
available in all Department of Public Safety websites operated by the Cityof Sunnyvale.
Finding 29
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety does not make multilingual complaint
materials freely available in hard copy form intheir lobby.
Recommendation 29
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should make multilingual complaint
materials freely available inhard copy form intheir lobby.
Finding 30
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety complaint materials include reference to
the unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminaladvisory.
Recommendation 30
The Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety should remove reference to the
unconstitutional California Penal Code Section 148.6 criminal advisory from their
complaint materials.
15
^o
Appendix A
California Penal Code Section 832.5 (a)(1)
Each department or agency in this state that employs peace
officers shall establish a procedure to investigate complaints by
members of the public against the personnel of these
departments or agencies,and shall make a written description of
the procedure available to the public.
16
r\r\
This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence ofat least 12 grand jurors
on this 4th dayofJune,2013.
^3^J^JMk^^iL
Steven P.McPherson
Foreperson
LynH.Jefhnson
Foreperson pro tern
Chester F.Hayes
Foreperson pro tern
A\iu^^f
TT
Francis A.Stephens
Secretary
17
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Co
u
n
t
y
Ci
v
i
l
Gr
a
n
d
Ju
r
y
19
1
N
o
r
t
h
Fi
r
s
t
St
r
e
e
t
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
,
CA
95
1
1
3
Ho
n
o
r
a
b
l
e
Gr
e
g
o
r
y
Sc
h
a
r
f
f
M
a
y
o
r
Ci
t
y
of
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
25
0
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
,
CA
94
3
0
1
c c