More often than not, San Diego sheriff, probation chief reject or delay oversight board recommendations – San Diego Union-Tribune

San Diego Civilian Review Board Meeting

San Diego CLERB Recommendation Summary

San Diego Civilian Review Board Sees Mixed Success with Reform Recommendations

The San Diego County Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) has achieved limited success in implementing reforms, with law enforcement agencies accepting just 14 of 38 policy recommendations made during 2021-2022, a review of board documents shows.

CLERB, established to provide civilian oversight of the Sheriff's and Probation departments, found greater success with recommendations focused on internal procedures and non-controversial safety measures while facing resistance to proposals that would limit officer discretion or require significant operational changes.

"The advisory-only nature of CLERB means we lack enforcement power for our recommendations," said Paul R. Parker III, CLERB's Executive Officer. "Our effectiveness relies heavily on voluntary cooperation from the departments we oversee."

Among the approved changes were protocols for documenting video system checks, making overdose treatment drug naloxone available to inmates, and allowing CLERB staff to be present at death scenes. However, the departments rejected proposals to reduce discretionary stops for minor offenses, modify vehicle pursuit policies, and enhance oversight of officer interactions with people of color.

The Sheriff's Department cited existing practices, resource constraints, and operational concerns in rejecting 13 recommendations. Eleven other proposals remain under review by the departments.

Critics note the lack of formal mechanisms for tracking implementation of accepted recommendations or measuring their effectiveness. There is also no process for revisiting rejected proposals.

CLERB was established by voter initiative in 1990 to investigate complaints against peace officers and review in-custody deaths. While it can subpoena witnesses and documents, its role remains purely advisory - it cannot manage department operations, set policies, or impose discipline.

The board has recently increased focus on in-custody deaths and racial disparities in policing, reflecting growing public concern about these issues. However, its limited authority means meaningful reform continues to depend largely on law enforcement agencies' willingness to embrace change.

"There's a clear pattern of which recommendations get approved," noted MaryAnne Pintar, a CLERB board member. "Changes that don't significantly impact daily operations or officer discretion are more likely to be implemented, while more substantial reforms face greater resistance."

The board continues to push for greater transparency and accountability, recently creating specialized committees to examine racial profiling and in-custody deaths. Whether these efforts will lead to more accepted recommendations remains to be seen.

For more information about CLERB's work and recommendations, visit www.sandiegocounty.gov/clerb.

 

Here's a summary of CLERB's recommendations and their status:

Total Policy Recommendations Made (2021-2022): 38 recommendations
- To SDSD: 35 recommendations
- To Probation: 3 recommendations

Implemented Recommendations (14 total):
1. Update DSB P&P Section I.83 to define cell extraction as a "planned" event
2. Create/amend policies for sworn members serving food to inmates professionally and sanitarily
3. Update DSB P&P Section I.19 Security Video Systems to mandate documenting video system checks
4. Revise Use of Force Guidelines to mandate de-escalation techniques when safe
5. Allow CLERB staff to be present at death scenes and receive briefings
6. Discontinue "standard procedure" for sealing in-custody death cases without foul play suspicion
7. Institute pre-employment screening for implicit/explicit bias
8. Update Family Liaison Protocol for post-investigation meetings with families
9. Make naloxone readily available to inmates and provide education on overdose response
10. Update Detention Canine Program policies for contraband searches
11. Require BWC activation prior to law enforcement contact
12. Research and implement technological devices to identify inmates in medical distress
13. Update Family Liaison Protocol for death investigation outcomes
14. Make naloxone available and provide overdose response education

Not Accepted/Rejected Recommendations (13 total):
1. Correlate DSB P&P sections regarding high-risk EOH unit inmates
2. Update DSB P&P for proof of life verification and camera use in booking
3. Reduce discretionary stops for low-level offenses
4. Eliminate stops for minor traffic violations
5. Eliminate contacts for quality-of-life issues
6. Add evaluation of racial disparity impact to Use of Discretion policy
7. Proactively review BWC footage to analyze racial differences in interactions
8. Modify Vehicle Pursuit policy regarding non-violent crimes
9. Modify Vehicle Pursuit policy regarding public safety factors
10. Update body scanner policies for inter-facility transfers
11. Require justification for stops on BWC
12. Revise P&P for proof of life verification during booking
13. Only use cells with working cameras unless others unavailable

Pending/Under Review (11 total):
Several recommendations are still under review by SDSD and Probation, including:
- Digital scanning of non-legal mail
- Physical searches/body scans of all facility entrants
- Updates to public recording policies
- Creation of training bulletins
- Expansion of BWC policies
- Response procedures at booking
- Various recommendations to Probation Department

The documents indicate CLERB has been active in making recommendations for policy changes, particularly around in-custody deaths and racial disparities in policing. While some significant recommendations have been implemented, others face resistance or are still under consideration. 

Here's an analysis of CLERB's recommendation powers and patterns:

Powers and Authority:

San Diego Watchdog Agency Has Bark But Little Bite, Records Show

The Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board, San Diego County's primary police oversight body, faces significant limitations in its ability to drive change despite broad investigative powers, according to a review of county documents and recent board reports.

While CLERB possesses robust authority to investigate complaints, subpoena witnesses, and examine deaths involving law enforcement, its recommendations are purely advisory. Recent records show law enforcement agencies rejected nearly half of CLERB's policy recommendations in 2021-2022, particularly those involving operational changes or enhanced oversight. "The advisory-only nature of CLERB means we lack enforcement power for our recommendations," noted Executive Officer Paul R. Parker III.

The 11-member civilian board, whose members are nominated by the County Administrative Officer and appointed by the Board of Supervisors, serves as the primary oversight mechanism for the Sheriff's and Probation departments. Board members, who must be county residents and cannot be law enforcement officers or county employees, can serve up to two three-year terms. While the board has authority to investigate citizen complaints, in-custody deaths, and use of force incidents, it relies heavily on voluntary cooperation from the departments it oversees to implement changes.

"There's a clear pattern of which recommendations get approved," said board member MaryAnne Pintar. "Changes that don't significantly impact daily operations or officer discretion are more likely to be implemented, while more substantial reforms face greater resistance." The board continues to push for greater transparency and accountability, recently creating specialized committees to examine racial profiling and in-custody deaths, but its effectiveness ultimately depends on law enforcement's willingness to embrace reform.

• - CLERB is established by San Diego County Charter Section 606 and County Ordinance #7880
• - CLERB has authority to "review and make recommendations on policies and procedures" to the Board of Supervisors, Sheriff, and Chief Probation Officer
• - However, CLERB is "advisory only" and does not have authority to:
•   - Manage or operate the Sheriff's/Probation Departments
•   - Direct activities of officers/employees
•   - Decide policies
•   - Impose discipline

San Diego Law Enforcement Oversight Lacks Real Authority, Critics Say

Despite mounting concerns over in-custody deaths and racial disparities in policing, San Diego County's primary law enforcement oversight body remains largely toothless, with no real power to mandate changes in police practices or department policies.

Other major jurisdictions have adopted stronger oversight models. Los Angeles County employs an Inspector General with broad investigative powers and the ability to mandate reforms, while San Francisco's Police Commission holds authority over both policy and disciplinary matters. New York City uses a hybrid model with multiple layers of oversight and real enforcement mechanisms.

Modest Changes Could Strengthen San Diego Law Enforcement Oversight

A new proposal for strengthening oversight of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department would maintain the sheriff's elected status while creating real checks and balances through modest changes to the county's oversight system.

Under the proposed reforms, the Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) would gain the power to appeal rejected recommendations to the County Board of Supervisors for final determination. This change would create a crucial accountability mechanism while respecting the sheriff's electoral mandate. "Rather than completely restructuring law enforcement oversight, we're suggesting a balanced approach that adds teeth to civilian oversight while maintaining democratic control," said Paul R. Parker III, CLERB's Executive Officer.

The proposal also calls for creating an Inspector General position to serve as permanent counsel to CLERB, providing professional expertise and continuity to the civilian board's work. The IG would bring investigative experience and institutional knowledge to CLERB's deliberations, while helping craft more effective recommendations. Similar positions have proven successful in other jurisdictions.

"These changes would require relatively modest amendments to the county charter, making them more politically feasible than wholesale restructuring," said Sandra Thompson, a local government expert at California Western School of Law. "The key is creating accountability without undermining the democratic process of an elected sheriff." The Board of Supervisors could consider placing such charter amendments on the ballot as early as 2024.

Required Charter Changes:
1. Grant CLERB authority to appeal rejected recommendations to Board of Supervisors
2. Establish timeline and process for appeals
3. Create Inspector General position
4. Define IG's role and relationship to CLERB
5. Establish funding mechanisms for enhanced oversight

Themes in Approved vs Rejected Recommendations:

Approved recommendations generally focused on:
1. Internal procedures/documentation:

• - Video system checks
• - Record keeping
• - Updating existing protocols

2. Non-controversial safety measures:

• - Making naloxone available
• - Medical distress monitoring
• - Family liaison protocols

3. Recommendations that aligned with existing department practices or initiatives:

• - Implementing bias screening that was already occurring
• - BWC activation policies that matched existing practice

Rejected recommendations 

These often involved:
1. Operational discretion:

• - Vehicle pursuit policies
• - Stop/contact procedures
• - Use of force guidelines

2. Resource-intensive changes:

• - Body scanner policies
• - Camera requirements
• - Staff monitoring/review procedures

3. Changes to enforcement practices:

• - Reducing discretionary stops
• - Eliminating certain types of enforcement
• - Changing pursuit policies

Primary Reasons Given for Rejections:

1. Already being done (e.g., BWC justification for stops)
2. Resource constraints
3. Operational/safety concerns
4. Policy conflicts
5. Impracticality of implementation

However, detailed reasons for rejections are not always provided.

 

Here's a more detailed analysis of the rejected recommendations and their rationales:

Traffic & Discretionary Stops Recommendations (Rejected):
1. Reduce discretionary stops for low-level offenses
2. Eliminate stopping people for minor traffic violations like:
- Expired registration
- Equipment violations
- Seatbelt violations
3. Eliminate contacts for quality-of-life issues (loitering, jaywalking)

SDSD's Response: While specific reasons weren't detailed, these were rejected despite data showing racial disparities in enforcement. CLERB had proposed mailing citations instead of physical stops, similar to parking violations.

Vehicle Pursuit Policy Recommendations (Rejected):

1. Prohibit pursuits for non-violent crimes including stolen vehicles
2. Change policy language from "may consider" to "shall consider" regarding public safety factors

SDSD's Rationale: Not explicitly stated, but the recommendation came after a fatal collision during a stolen vehicle pursuit.

Oversight & Monitoring Recommendations (Rejected):

1. Add racial disparity impact evaluation to Use of Discretion policy
2. Proactively review BWC footage to analyze racial differences in interactions
3. Require documented justification for stops on BWC
4. Monitor social media posts of staff for biased content
5. Regular review of department-issued devices for discriminatory content

Rationale Given:
- Resource constraints (particularly for social media monitoring)
- Claims that some practices (like BWC justification) were already being done
- Staffing limitations

Facility Safety Recommendations (Rejected):

1. Mandate proof of life verification during booking process
2. Only use cells with working cameras unless others unavailable
3. Update body scanner policies for inter-facility transfers

SDSD's Response:
- Operational impracticality
- Resource limitations
- Existing procedures deemed sufficient

Key Patterns in Rejections:

1. Recommendations that would limit officer discretion or change enforcement practices face strongest resistance
2. Cost and resource concerns are commonly cited, especially for monitoring/oversight recommendations
3. Departments often claim existing procedures are adequate rather than adopting formal policy changes
4. Recommendations targeting racial disparities faced particular resistance
5. Safety-related recommendations were sometimes rejected based on operational concerns

Notable Aspects:

1. Many rejections lack detailed explanations of why the recommendation wouldn't work
2. Some rejected recommendations were in response to specific incidents or deaths
3. There's no formal process for CLERB to challenge or appeal rejections
4. Some rejected recommendations align with reforms adopted in other jurisdictions
5. Several recommendations were rejected despite data supporting their potential effectiveness

Impact Areas Most Likely to be Rejected:

1. Changes to enforcement discretion
2. Enhanced oversight measures
3. Racial equity initiatives
4. Major operational changes
5. Resource-intensive monitoring programs

The documents suggest a pattern of resistance to recommendations that would:

• - Reduce officer discretion
• - Require significant resources
• - Change fundamental operating procedures
• - Address racial disparities
• - Increase oversight and accountability

This analysis reveals that while CLERB can make recommendations across a wide spectrum of issues, those requiring substantial changes to department operations or addressing sensitive issues like racial disparities face the greatest resistance, often with limited explanation for the rejection.

Follow-up on Implementation:

There are some gaps in monitoring implementation:

• - No formal mechanism appears to exist for verifying implementation of accepted recommendations
• - Little documentation of how implemented recommendations are working in practice
• - Limited ability to measure effectiveness of changes
• - No clear process for revisiting rejected recommendations

Key Observations:

1. CLERB's effectiveness relies heavily on voluntary cooperation from the departments it oversees
2. Recommendations that require significant operational changes or limit officer discretion face more resistance
3. The advisory nature of CLERB means it lacks enforcement power for its recommendations
4. There appears to be a need for:

• - Better tracking of implementation
• - More detailed justification for rejections
• - Follow-up monitoring of implemented changes
• - Clear metrics for measuring effectiveness

The documents suggest that while CLERB has authority to make recommendations, its ability to effect change depends largely on department cooperation and willingness to implement suggested reforms. The lack of enforcement power and formal follow-up mechanisms may limit its overall effectiveness.

More often than not, San Diego sheriff, probation chief reject or delay oversight board recommendations – San Diego Union-Tribune

sandiegouniontribune.com

By Jeff McDonald | jeff.mcdonald@sduniontribune.com | The San Diego Union-Tribune

PUBLISHED: November 17, 2024 at 5:00 AM PST

---

In just under five years, the civilian oversight board responsible for monitoring the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department issued almost 100 policy recommendations — proposals to officially change rules and requirements in order to improve practices and save lives, time or money.

But the sheriff and chief probation officer rejected or delayed almost two-thirds of those suggestions, saying the proposals pushed by the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board were impractical or unworkable or required further study.

Since January 2020, the oversight panel known as CLERB has issued a total of 91 formal recommendations to Sheriff’s and Probation officials, according to an analysis released by the review board last week.

Of those proposals, 34 were accepted, 29 were rejected and 26 remain under review. Some of the policy recommendations that have yet to be accepted or rejected date back to last year, the review board study shows.

Two recommendations were partially accepted. Those include plans to expand the number of people in jails who are screened by drug-sniffing dogs and to add to what a family liaison officer can tell relatives of people who die or suffer serious injuries in custody.

The lack of action on most of the suggestions comes at a time when both the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department are publicly at odds with the oversight board over unrelated requests for documents and other information. Each of those disputes prompted the review board to hire an outside lawyer, potentially pitting one San Diego County agency against two others in lengthy or costly legal proceedings.

The vast majority of recommendations were made to the Sheriff’s Office — 79 of the 91 noted in the study.

Most of the 29 suggestions accepted by sheriff’s officials were relatively modest, such as amending department business cards to make it easier for the public to identify employees.

The Sheriff’s Office also agreed to help reduce jail deaths by adding family members and medical staff to the list of people called upon to report when someone who has been arrested expresses suicidal tendencies before or during a housing assessment.

But the sheriff rejected 26 different recommendations that would be harder to implement.

For example, Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez refused to require deputies to safety-check people being booked into custody at least once every hour. She also declined to require that deputies only use cells with working surveillance cameras unless no other housing is available.

The sheriff has also repeatedly declined recommendations to body-scan everyone entering county detention facilities as a means of keeping drugs out of jails. Instead, Martinez introduced a random screening process she said would help limit overdoses.

Twenty-two recommendations to the Sheriff’s Office have yet to be accepted or rejected.

Lt. David LaDieu said every policy change presented by the review board undergoes a comprehensive review that evaluates potential impacts on public and employee safety, existing legal frameworks and office resources.

“While not every recommendation has been accepted, many policy changes proposed by CLERB have been implemented,” he said by email. “These changes have led to improvements in areas such as use-of-force guidelines, de-escalation training, in-custody medical care, training and education.”

LaDieu said the length of time it can take the office to respond to policy recommendations does not reflect on the merits of the suggestion.

“The timeline for evaluating recommendations can vary based on their complexity and scope,” he said. “Changes in policy must be evidence-based and tested for real-world application to ensure they serve their intended purpose without unintended negative consequences.”

Probation officials accepted five out of 12 policy recommendations outlined in the CLERB report – including a plan to implement a schedule for home inspections of facilities that are contracted to house people under their jurisdiction.

The review board report said the department rejected three recommendations and has yet to complete assessments of four others.

Sheriff Kelly Martinez gives a presentation to the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board on Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2024 in San Diego, California. (Ana Ramirez / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

One of the CLERB suggestions that failed to meet Probation Department approval was a rule barring employees from any involvement with racist or other discriminatory groups — including on social media.

“Such participation or association undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Probation Department and creates doubt that all communities will be served equitably,” the CLERB analysis said.

The board also recommended that Probation managers regularly review employees’ publicly available social media posts as well as department-issued cellphones and computers for biased or discriminatory content.

But Chief Probation Officer Tamika Nelson said she lacked the budget she would need to monitor her staff’s social media posts.

“This recommendation presents challenges that currently we are not able to meet,” she wrote to the board. “However, should our staffing resources and fiscal outlook improve in the future, we will reassess adopting this recommendation.”

The Sheriff’s Office received the same policy recommendation and also rejected the idea.

Probation Department spokesperson Chuck Westerheide said the office values its relationship with CLERB and seriously considers all of its policy recommendations.

“The review process involves consultation and coordination with necessary and appropriate personnel who have subject matter expertise in those policy areas to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and regulations,” he said by email.

“Additionally, those policies need review to ensure they are in alignment with best practices,” Westerheide added. “The Probation Department looks forward to further coordination with CLERB to protect public safety and support those who are justice involved.”

San Diego County’s two primary law enforcement agencies are both embroiled in high-profile disputes with the civilian board established to oversee them.

In separate cases unfolding over the past two months, both Martinez and Nelson have withheld information from CLERB as it has sought to hold the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department accountable to the public.

Sheriff’s officials took the unusual position of asserting that the review board lacks authority over the department, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported early last month. They argue CLERB can only investigate individual deputies — not the agency as a whole.

“The sheriff believes that the sustained findings of misconduct against the entire Sheriff’s Office, as the subject officer(s), do not fall within the San Diego County charter, nor the authority granted to CLERB by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors,” Martinez wrote.

That claim came after the review board repeatedly issued misconduct findings against the Sheriff’s Office in cases involving fatal drug overdoses.

In another dispute that became visible just last week, sheriff’s officials for months have been withholding documents and other information requested by a consulting firm hired by the review board.

The company was hired in 2022 to figure out why so many people die in San Diego County jails, and what changes the agency could make to reduce “excess deaths” in custody.

Rather than provide the information, the Sheriff’s Office directed the consultants to request the documents under the California Public Records Act. The researchers filed multiple requests but have not received the records.

The result “has been a protracted and frustrating attempt to acquire the needed data from the Sheriff’s Office, which has been largely unsuccessful,” CLERB Chair MaryAnne Pintar wrote in a letter to the sheriff.

“Despite numerous CPRA requests … the data has not been fully provided, with multiple requests denied or delayed,” she added.

Probation chief Nelson has adopted a similar strategy in processing CLERB requests.

Twice in recent months, the Probation Department withheld documents the review board sought as part of investigations. Those cases later had to be closed due to the lack of cooperation.

Westerheide insisted the county must protect the rights of people in custody.

“If Probation improperly releases juvenile case-file information it will violate the law and the youth’s privacy rights — the effects of which could be catastrophic for the youth’s rehabilitation,” the spokesperson said by email.