Chapter 3 – Personnel, Training, and Employee Relations

33070.1 Policy

• Any person can submit a complaint of staff misconduct when they believe department staff have engaged in behavior that resulted in a violation of law, policy, regulation, or procedure, or an ethical or professional standard. Complaints alleging staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee shall be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ (OIAOffice of Internal Affairs) Centralized Screening Team (CST), and then referred to the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs Allegation Investigation Unit (AIU) for investigation, the Hiring Authority for an allegation inquiry, or the institution or program for disposition as a routine issue.

33070.2 Purpose

• To ensure that allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee are addressed and that allegation inquiries and investigations are sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased so a Hiring Authority can determine a finding for each allegation.

33070.3 Definitions

• Allegations Against Staff Tracking System (AASTS) – An electronic data system used to log and track allegations of staff misconduct involving department staff.

• Allegation Decision Index (ADI) – The list of criteria used by CST to determine whether an allegation of staff misconduct should be referred to the AIU for investigation, or to the Hiring Authority for an allegation inquiry.

• Allegation Inquiry – The gathering of relevant facts and evidence by a Locally Designated Investigator (LDI) for a complaint that contains an allegation of staff misconduct.

• Allegation Inquiry Report – The confidential report prepared by an LDI following an allegation inquiry.

• Allegation Investigation Unit (AIU) – The unit within the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs that conducts investigations into complaints alleging misconduct toward inmates and parolees as set forth in Title 15,  section 3486.2, and reviews Allegation Inquiry Reports completed by LDIs.

• AIU Investigator – An investigator within AIU assigned to conduct a confidential investigation.
  Appointing Power – The Secretary of the department.

• Appointing Power – The Secretary of the department.

• Case Tracking System (CTSClassification Tracking System) – An electronic system that allows real time documentation of investigative case activity and allows various participants within the employee disciplinary process to access documents, monitor cases, and record key decisions and due dates.

• Central Repository – A secure collection location for submission of staff misconduct allegations documented or received by department staff. A Central Repository may be a physical location at a work site, or via an email address provided for the purpose of submitting allegations of staff misconduct.

• Centralized Screening Team (CST) – The entity within OIAOffice of Internal Affairs that reviews complaints to determine if the documentation contains a routine issue, alleges staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee, or alleges staff misconduct not toward an inmate or parolee.

• Clarification Interview – An interview conducted by CST staff when clarification is required to make a screening decision.

• Complaint – Any documentation or verbal statement received by the department, from any source, that contains a routine issue or alleges staff misconduct.

• Complainant – A person making a complaint against departmental staff.

• Deputy Director, Office of Internal Affairs (OIAOffice of Internal Affairs) – An individual responsible for the operation and functions of the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs.

• Department Staff – California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) employees, contractors, and volunteers.

• Designated Case – A case assigned to an EAPT VA.

• Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team (EAPT) – The entity in the OLAOffice of Legal Affairs responsible for providing legal counsel and representation to the department during the employee investigation, discipline, and appeal processes.

• Hiring Authority – Has the same meaning in this Article as in Title 15, section 3392(a)(11).

• Investigation – The gathering of facts and evidence by an OIAOffice of Internal Affairs Investigator.

• Investigation Assignment Index (IAI) – The index used by an AIU manager to make a decision regarding the level of AIU investigator to be assigned to conduct an investigation.

• Investigation Assignment Decision – The decision made by the AIU manager of the level of AIU investigator to be assigned to conduct an investigation.

• Investigation Report – The confidential report prepared by an OIAOffice of Internal Affairs investigator following an investigation.

• Locally Designated Investigator – Department staff trained by OIAOffice of Internal Affairs to collect evidence, conduct allegation inquiries, and draft Allegation Inquiry Reports.

• Monitored Cases – A case monitored by the Office of the Inspector General (OIGOffice of the Inspector General).

• Office of Grievances (OOG) – The entity within CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with the authority to log and track grievances filed by an inmate or parolee. The OOG shall ensure that all routine claims returned from the CST to the OOG are reviewed and answered.

• Office of Internal Affairs (OIAOffice of Internal Affairs) – The entity within CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with the authority to investigate allegations of staff misconduct.

• (aa) Routine Issue – Any complaint received by CST that is not identified as containing an allegation of staff misconduct.

• (bb) Screening Decision – The decision made by CST of whether a complaint contains routine issue(s), allegation(s) of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee, or allegation(s) of staff misconduct not related to an inmate or parolee.

• (cc) Staff Misconduct – Behavior engaged in by department staff that results in a violation of law, regulation, policy, or procedure, or actions contrary to an ethical or professional standard.

• (dd) Vertical Advocate (VA) – An EAPT attorney who provides legal advice to the department during investigations and the employee discipline process for designated cases, and represents the department at administrative hearings and during any subsequent writ or appellate proceedings.

33070.4 Responsibility

33070.4.1 Appointing Power

• The Appointing Power shall ensure compliance with the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs’s internal affairs investigation policies and procedures as set forth in Title 15, sections 3486-3486.3, and this policy.

33070.4.2 Director

• Each Director shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with Title 15,  sections  3486-3486.3, OIAOffice of Internal Affairs’s internal affairs investigation policies and procedures, and this policy within their respective area.

33070.4.3 Office of Internal Affairs, Allegation Investigation Unit

• Allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee referred by CST for investigation will be handled by the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs, AIU. The OIAOffice of Internal Affairs, AIU shall be responsible for:

  • Conducting investigations into allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee;

  • Ensuring allegation inquiries and investigations are sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased;

  • Reviewing allegation inquiry reports to determine which allegations of staff misconduct warrant an AIU investigation; and

  • Ensuring investigations are completed in a timely manner.
    

33070.4.4 Centralized Screening Team

• The CST is responsible for reviewing all documents received and making a screening decision to determine whether a complaint should be referred to AIU for investigation, or to the Hiring Authority for an allegation inquiry or disposition as a routine issue.

33070.4.5 Deputy Director, Office of Internal Affairs

• The Deputy Director shall be responsible for overseeing the department’s OIAOffice of Internal Affairs, and ensuring implementation  of  the  AIU  policies,  procedures,  and  training  set  forth  in  Title  15,  sections 3486-3486.3, and this policy.

33070.4.6 Chief, Allegation Investigation Unit

• The Chief, AIU shall be responsible for overseeing the department’s AIU for allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee.

33070.4.7 Chief, Centralized Screening Team

• The Chief, CST shall be responsible for overseeing the CST process for screening complaints and making screening decisions.

33070.4.8 Regional Administrator, Allegation Investigation Unit

• Each AIU Regional Administrator shall be responsible for overseeing operations of the AIU regional office, and the AIU Manager review of Allegation Inquiry Reports from LDIs.

33070.4.9 Manager, Allegation Investigation Unit

• Each AIU Manager shall be responsible for assigning investigations to, and supervising AIU investigators, and ensuring completion of sufficient and thorough investigations and allegation inquiries for cases involving staff misconduct toward inmates or parolees.

33070.4.10 Investigation, Allegation Investigation Unit

• Each AIU Investigator shall be responsible for:

  • Investigating allegations of staff misconduct toward inmates or parolees for assigned cases, and completing sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased Investigation Reports; and

  • Cooperating and consulting with the assigned VA for designated cases, and the assigned OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases.
    

33070.4.11 Hiring Authority

• Each Hiring Authority shall be responsible for ensuring allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee are referred to CST for screening, reviewing completed Allegation Inquiry Reports and Investigation Reports, and determining whether corrective action or disciplinary action is imposed when warranted.

33070.4.12 Supervisors and Managers

• Each supervisor and manager shall be responsible for referring verbal allegations of unnecessary or excessive use of force and staff sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, toward an inmate or parolee to CST via the Central Repository.

33070.4.13 Locally Designed Investigation

• LDIs shall be responsible for the following:

  • Conducting allegation inquiries that are sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased;

  • Familiarizing and complying with the requirements set forth in the various State Bargaining Unit MOUMemorandum Of Understanding applicable to the investigation process.

  • Cooperating and consulting with the AIU manager, and the assigned OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases; and

  • Authoring a confidential draft Allegation Inquiry Report with supporting exhibits attached, and providing the draft Allegation Inquiry Report via designated institution or program staff to the AIU manager for review and approval.
    

33070.5 Employee Expectations and Reporting

• Each employee, regardless of classification or rank, shall adhere to the department’s Employee Performance Standards set forth in Title 15, section 3391, and be responsible for the following:

  • Referring all observed misconduct or any unethical or illegal activity toward an inmate or parolee to CST via the Central Repository;

  • Referring verbal allegations of unnecessary or excessive use of force and staff sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, toward an inmate or parolee to CST via the Central Repository, and immediately forward the complaint to their Hiring Authority;

  • Advising the complainant on how to submit their complaint in writing for verbal complaints not involving unnecessary or excessive use of force and staff sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, toward an inmate or parolee; and

  • Reporting alleged staff misconduct promptly to a supervisor or other appropriate departmental, governmental, or law enforcement entity. If information is reported verbally to a supervisor, the employee shall also submit a written report to the supervisor.
    

33070.6 Allegation of Staff Misconduct Constituting an Emergency

• Any allegation of staff misconduct which is believed by department staff to constitute an emergency shall be reported immediately to a supervisor. In the event of such an emergency, staff shall submit a written report within one (1) calendar day of learning the information. Instances that constitute an emergency include, but are not limited to:

  • Imminent risk to personal safety including possible loss of life or serious bodily injury;

  • Sexual abuse or acts of sexual misconduct as defined by the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and the California Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Act;

  • Serious breach of the safety or security of a facility or program;

  • Further aggravation of a potentially dangerous situation;

  • Activities which would compromise or jeopardize an investigation; or

  • An illegal activity which may occur.
    

33070.7 Reporting Misconduct and Protecting Employees from Retaliation

• To encourage and protect employees that confront and report serious misconduct, the department has strengthened its policies and procedures to provide additional protections beyond those included in the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code section 8547 et seq.) and other California protective statutes. This reporting of misconduct process and the protection offered by the department are detailed in the department’s “Policy and Procedure for Reporting Serious Misconduct and Protecting Employees from Retaliation.” The procedures may be obtained by contacting the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs and are available on the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs web page.

33070.8 Complaints by Members of the Public Regarding Staff Misconduct Toward an Inmate or Parolee

• Pursuant to Penal Code (PCPenal Code) section 832.5, it is the policy of the department, as an employer of peace officers, to have a procedure for investigating a complaint by a member of the public against its peace officers.

• Any person, other than an inmate or parolee, or departmental employee, who wishes to file a complaint of misconduct by any departmental employee, including peace officers, shall be advised to submit a complaint. Complaints of misconduct will normally be recorded on a CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Form 2142, Citizen’s Complaint Against Employees of CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

• A complaint may be made at any time, day or night, to any on-duty departmental supervisor. The complainant may also choose to mail or deliver their complaint directly to the Hiring Authority or any department head. Upon initial receipt of a complaint by a member of the public, the supervisor accepting the complaint shall confirm the complaint involves a department employee(s). Complaints determined to involve personnel from other agencies shall be forwarded to the appropriate authority of that agency through the appropriate chain of command.

• Upon receipt of a written complaint or CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Form 2142 from a member of the public, the departmental supervisor accepting the complaint shall submit the complaint to CST for screening via the Central Repository. The complainant shall be notified in writing by the institution or parole region that their complaint has been received within 30 calendar days of receipt. Complaints and reports and findings relating to the complaints made by members of the public shall be retained for a period of at least five years pursuant to PCPenal Code section 832.5(b) and the department Records Retention Schedule.
  

33070.9 Centralized Screen Team

33070.9.1 Referral of Complaint to the Centralized Screening Team

• Department staff receiving a written complaint from a complainant alleging staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee, shall refer the complaint to the CST via the Central Repository, and notify their supervisor to determine if the complaint contains information constituting an imminent risk to personal safety, institutional security, or involves sexual abuse or acts of sexual misconduct as defined by PREA and the California Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Act.

• Department staff shall document in writing any verbal complaints received that involve an allegation that an inmate or parolee was subject to unnecessary or excessive use of force, staff-on-offender sexual misconduct, or sexual harassment. The departmental staff receiving the complaint shall refer the complaint to CST via the Central Repository, and immediately forward the complaint to their Hiring Authority.

• For allegations of staff misconduct not toward an inmate or parolee, the Hiring Authority shall not refer the allegation to CST, but may initiate an allegation inquiry, impose corrective action, or request an investigation or approval of direct adverse action, pursuant to the department’s regulations, policies and procedures.
  

33070.9.2 Centralized Screening Team Review and Screening Decision

• When a document is received by CST, staff shall review each document, identify all issues, and determine whether the document contains:

  • A routine issue; or

  • Allegation(s) of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee; or

  • Allegation(s) of staff misconduct not toward an inmate or parolee.

• CST staff shall also review each document to determine if it contains information constituting an imminent risk to personal safety, or institutional security, or involves sexual abuse or acts of sexual misconduct as defined by PREA and the California Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination Act, not previously identified by departmental staff who referred the allegation. In those instances, CST shall immediately notify the Hiring Authority of the affected institution or program for appropriate action.

• CST shall notify the Hiring Authority of the screening decision. Additionally, the institution or parole region shall ensure the complainant is notified in writing that their complaint has been received within thirty (30) business days of receipt.

• The CST shall normally route all complaints within five business days of receipt, unless the clarification interview process requires additional time.
  

33070.9.3 Clarification Interview

• CST shall conduct a clarification interview if required to make a screening decision. The clarification interview shall be conducted in a manner that provides as much privacy for the complainant as operationally feasible. The CST shall record the information obtained during the clarification interview into the appropriate information technology system.

33070.9.4 Routine Issues

• CST staff shall return issues identified as routine to the institution or program for a response in accordance with applicable department rules, regulations, and operational procedures.

33070.9.5 Staff Misconduct Toward an Inmate or Parolee

• CST shall log allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee into the AASTS when the allegation has not already been entered by designated institution or program staff. CST shall utilize the ADI to determine whether the allegation will be referred to AIU for investigation or to the Hiring Authority for an allegation inquiry.

33070.9.6 Staff Misconduct Not Toward an Inmate or Parolee33070.9.6

• CST staff shall return issues identified as staff misconduct not toward an inmate or parolee to the Hiring Authority for disposition in accordance with applicable department rules, regulations, and operational procedures.

33070.9.7 Allegation Decision Index

• Allegations of serious staff misconduct that are complex issues requiring specialized skills or resources to investigate shall be referred to AIU for investigation, to include all allegations listed on the ADI. When allegation of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated or supervised person is identified by CST, CST shall first refer to the ADI to determine if the allegation is listed in ADI. CST shall refer allegations listed in the ADI to AIU for investigation. CST shall refer allegations not listed in the ADI to the Hiring Authority for an allegation inquiry, unless after review CST determines the allegation includes complex issues requiring specialized investigative skills or resources that warrant assignment to AIU for investigation.

• The ADI is as follows:
  

  ALLEGATION DECISION INDEX

  Allegations of Staff Misconduct Toward an incarcerated/supervised person designated for OIAOffice of Internal Affairs Referral

  USE OF FORCE

  (1) Failure to report own or witnessed use of force.

  (2) Excessive or unnecessary use of force.

  (3) Improper use of restraints.

  (4) Misuse, non-use, or careless handling of duty weapon(s).

  (5) Inappropriate display of duty weapons.

  STAFF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

  (1) Sexual misconduct with an inmate or parolee.

  (2) Sexual violence toward an inmate or parolee.

  (3) Sexual harassment toward an inmate or parolee.

  NOTE 1: Allegations meeting these criteria shall be processed in accordance with Department Operations Manual (“DOMDepartment Operations Manual) 54040 and simultaneously referred to OIAOffice of Internal Affairs for investigation.

  DISHONESTY

  (1) Destruction, fabrication, falsification, alteration or planting of evidence.

  (2) Perjury, material misrepresentation, falsification, or intentionally misleading statements in official law enforcement reports or records, including rule violation reports.

  NOTE: Allegations of perjury, material misrepresentation, falsification, or intentionally misleading statements involving a rule violation report shall be routed to OIAOffice of Internal Affairs regardless of the status of the disciplinary process. However, the investigation will not begin until the disciplinary process is complete or 60 days after the initial copy of the rule violation report is issued to the incarcerated person, whichever occurs first.

  (3) Making false or intentionally misleading statements to a supervisor.

  DISCRIMINATION HARASSMENT

  (1) Discriminating against an incarcerated/supervised person pertaining to race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, marital status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.

  (2) Harassing an incarcerated/supervised person based upon race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, marital status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.

  (3) Making insults to an incarcerated/supervised person pertaining to race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, marital status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.

  NOTE 1: Allegations of policy violations related to disability, failure to accommodate a disability, or other allegations of ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act non-compliance that do not fall on the ADI shall be referred to the ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act Coordinator (ADAC) for managerial review and assignment to an ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act trained supervisor. If the ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act trained supervisor finds evidence which may result in adverse action, the ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act supervisor shall cease further review, and suspend and elevate the matter to CST.

  RETALIATION

  (1) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to reporting staff misconduct.

  (2) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to use of the Administrative Remedies (Grievance and Appeal) process.

  (3) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to participation in a lawsuit.

  (4) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to a request for a disability accommodation.

  CODE OF SILENCE

  (1) Any involvement in a coordinated effort with other employees, incarcerated/supervised persons to prohibit the reporting of misconduct.

  (2) Failure to report misconduct that another employee engaged in and that is listed on the ADI.

  (3) Intimidating, dissuading, or threatening witnesses.

  (4) Any independent act(s) which prevents or interferes with the reporting of misconduct.

  (5) Any behavior – including deactivation of, failure to activate, or obstruction of a body worn camera (BWC) – that prevents a BWC from recording or capturing an incident, event, or conduct by staff that is the subject of an investigation or supervisory/managerial review into an allegation of staff misconduct other than an allegation of BWC non-compliance.

  OTHER MISCONDUCT

  (1) Endangering incarcerated/supervised persons by violation of laws, court orders, regulations, policies, or training.

  (2) Misconduct resulting in significant injury or death of an incarcerated/supervised person.

  (3) Intimidating or threatening an incarcerated/supervised person with a sanction or action that, under the circumstances, violates laws, court orders, regulations, policies, or training.

  (4) Over-familiarity with an incarcerated/supervised person.

  (5) Use of position to solicit gratuities or favors from an incarcerated/supervised person.

  (6) Bringing contraband for an incarcerated person.

  (7) Creating an opportunity or motive for an incarcerated/supervised person to harm an incarcerated/supervised person or self (i.e. suicide).

  (8) Failure to intervene or attempt to stop misconduct that another employee engaged in and that is listed on the ADI.

  (9) Improper access, disclosure or transmittal of confidential information that endangers an incarcerated/supervised person.

33070.9.8 Dispute Resolution Process

• If the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General disagrees with a CST screening decision, they may request reevaluation by a CST manager and state the basis for their disagreement. If the CST Manager agrees with the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General, they shall modify the screening decision. If the CST Manager disagrees with the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General, they shall confirm the initial screening decision, and notify the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General of the decision. If the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General still disagrees with the screening decision, the Hiring Authority or OIGOffice of the Inspector General may elevate the screening decision to the CST Chief for review and decision. The dispute resolution process shall be initiated within 2 business days of the screening decision to ensure the timely processing of complaints.

33070.9.9 Allegations Against Staff Tracking System

• All allegations of staff misconduct, regardless of source, shall be entered into the Allegations Against Staff Tracking System (AASTS).

33070.10 Allegation Investigation Unit

33070.10.1 Allegation Investigation Unit Intake File

• Upon receipt of an allegation of staff misconduct from the CST, AIU staff shall analyze the complaint to determine if additional documents are needed for the intake file, assemble the available documents and recordings, and upload the intake file into the CTSClassification Tracking System for the AIU manager, EAPT and OIGOffice of the Inspector General to access within ten working days.

33070.10.2 Notification of EAPT Designation and OIG Monitoring Decision

• Once the intake file is uploaded into CTSClassification Tracking System by AIU, EAPT and OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff will notify the AIU manager if the case will be designated to a VA, or monitored by the OIGOffice of the Inspector General, within three working days.

33070.10.3 Investigation Assignment Decision and Assignment to Investigator

• The AIU Manager shall review the intake file and make an assignment to an investigator in accordance with the Investigation Assignment Index (IAI) unless other case factors exist to warrant increasing the level of the investigator or justify reducing the level of investigator. Case factors the AIU Manager shall consider include:

  • Evidence immediately available that supports or refutes allegations;

  • Number of inmates, parolees, or staff involved;

  • Number of allegations raised in a single incident;

  • Criminal misconduct versus administrative misconduct;

  • Availability of audio or video evidence;

  • Criminal statutes of limitations;

  • Disciplinary statutes of limitations;

  • Past allegations of same or similar misconduct against the staff member (excluding determinations of exonerated and unfounded); and

  • Length of time since alleged misconduct occurred (Allegations reported more than 1 year after the alleged misconduct occurred can be assigned to a lower level investigator than noted on the index.)

• A Special Agent shall be assigned to the investigation when:

  • Exigent circumstances exist;

  • The misconduct resulted in great bodily injury or death of an inmate or parolee;

  • Evidence of felony criminal conduct is present; or

  • The allegation involves a high-ranking, non-civil service staff member

• When a single incident involves multiple allegations of misconduct listed on the IAI, the AIU manager shall assign the case to the investigator level of the allegation requiring the highest level investigator noted in the IAI for those allegations, unless case factors exist that justify reducing the level of investigator.

• The AIU manager shall document their reasons for assigning an investigation to a lower level investigator than identified on the IAI.

• The AIU manager has the authority during the course of an investigation to reassign or co-assign any case to a higher level investigator when deemed necessary based on a change in the case factors, including but not limited to the discovery of corroborating evidence or an increase in the complexity of the investigation.

• The investigation assignment decision and investigator assigned shall be entered into CTSClassification Tracking System within 10 working days.

• If EAPT or OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff, disagrees with the investigation assignment decision, they shall notify the AIU manager of the disagreement, and provide a recommendation of the level of investigator to be assigned. If the AIU manager disagrees, the disagreement may be elevated to the AIU Chief for a final decision.
  

33070.10.4 Investigation Assignment Index

• The Investigation Assignment Index (IAI) is as follows:

  INVESTIGATION ASSIGNMENT INDEX	Sergeant, Lieutenant or Special Agent
  Use of Force
  (1) Failure to report own or witnessed use of force.	Lieutenant
  (2) Excessive or unnecessary use of force.	Lieutenant
  (3) Improper use of restraints.	Lieutenant
  (4) Misuse, non-use, or careless handling of duty weapon(s).	Lieutenant
  (5) Inappropriate display of duty weapons.	Lieutenant
  Staff Sexual Misconduct
  (1) Sexual misconduct with an incarcerated/supervised person.	Lieutenant
  (2) Sexual violence toward an incarcerated/supervised person.	Special Agent
  (3) Sexual harassment toward an incarcerated/supervised person.	Lieutenant
  NOTE 1: Allegations meeting these criteria shall be processed in accordance with Department Operations Manual (“DOMDepartment Operations Manual”) 54040 and simultaneously referred to OIAOffice of Internal Affairs for investigation.
  DISHONESTY
  (1) Destruction, fabrication, falsification, alteration or planting of evidence.	Lieutenant
  (2) Perjury, material misrepresentation, falsification, or intentionally misleading statements in official law enforcement reports or records, including rule violation reports. NOTE: Allegation of perjury, material misrepresentation, falsification, or intentionally misleading statements involving a rule violation report shall be routed to OIAOffice of Internal Affairs regardless of the status of the disciplinary process. However, the investigation will not begin until the disciplinary process is complete or 60 days after the initial copy of the rule violation report is issued to the incarcerated person, whichever occurs first.	Lieutenant
  (3) Making false or intentionally misleading statements to a supervisor.	Lieutenant
  Discrimination/Harassment
  (1) Discriminating against an incarcerated/supervised person pertaining to race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, marital status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.	Sergeant
  (2) Harassing an incarcerated/supervised person based upon race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, marital status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.	Sergeant
  (3) Making insults to an incarcerated/supervised person pertaining to race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex (i.e., gender), religion, martial status, age, disability, medical or mental health condition, pregnancy, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political affiliation.	Sergeant
  NOTE 1: Allegations of policy violations related to disability, failure to accommodate a disability, or other allegations of ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act non-compliance that do not fall on the ADI shall be referred to the ADAC for managerial review and assignment to an ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act trained supervisor. If the ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act trained supervisor finds evidence which may result in adverse action, the ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act supervisor shall cease further review, and suspend and elevate the matter to CST.
  Retaliation
  (1) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to reporting staff misconduct	Lieutenant
  (2) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to use of the Administrative Remedies (Grievance and Appeal) process	Sergeant
  (3) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to participation in a lawsuit	Sergeant
  (4) Retaliation against an incarcerated/supervised person due to a request for a disability accommodation	Sergeant
  Code of Silence
  (1) Any involvement in a coordinated effort with other employees, incarcerated/supervised person to prohibit the reporting of misconduct	Special Agent
  (2) Failure to report misconduct that another employee engaged in and that is listed on the ADI.	Lieutenant
  (3) Intimidating, dissuading, or threatening witnesses	Special Agent
  (4) Any independent act(s) which prevents or interferes with the reporting of misconduct	Lieutenant
  (5) Any behavior-including deactivation of, failure to activate, or obstruction of a BWC-that prevents a BWC from recording or capturing an incident, event, or conduct by staff that is the subject of an investigation or supervisory/managerial review into an allegation of staff misconduct other than an allegation of BWC non-compliance.	Lieutenant
  Other Misconduct
  (1) Endangering incarcerated/supervised persons by violation of laws, court orders, regulations, policies, or training.	Sergeant
  (2) Misconduct resulting in significant injury or death of an incarcerated/supervised person.	Special Agent
  (3) Intimidating or threatening an incarcerated/supervised person with a sanction or action that, under the circumstances, violates law, court orders, regulations, policies, or training.	Sergeant
  (4) Over-familiarity with an incarcerated/supervised person.	Sergeant
  (5) Use of position to solicit gratuities or favors from an incarcerated/supervised person.	Sergeant
  (6) Bringing contraband for an incarcerated person.	Lieutenant
  (7) Creating an opportunity or motive for an incarcerated/supervised person to harm an incarcerated/supervised person or self (i.e. suicide).	Lieutenant
  (8) Failure to intervene or attempt to stop misconduct that another employee engaged in and that is listed on the ADI.	Sergeant
  (9) Improper access, disclosure or transmittal of confidential information that endangers an incarcerated/supervised person.	Lieutenant

33070.10.5 Statute of Limitations

• For non-designated cases, AIU shall analyze and assess the Statute of Limitations (SOLCalifornia State Prison, Solano or Statute of Limitations ) expiration date for each assigned case, under Government Code section 3304(d) and (g) for public safety officers, and Government Code section 19635 for all state employees.

• For designated cases, the assigned VA shall analyze and assess the SOLCalifornia State Prison, Solano or Statute of Limitations expiration date for each case in accordance with DOMDepartment Operations Manual, Article 22, Employee Discipline.

• Within 10 working days from the case assignment to the investigator, the SOLCalifornia State Prison, Solano or Statute of Limitations expiration date shall be entered in CTSClassification Tracking System by AIU for non-designated cases, and the assigned VA for designated cases.

• Investigations should be completed in accordance with AIU procedures, and at least 60 calendar days prior to the SOLCalifornia State Prison, Solano or Statute of Limitations expiration date, unless a later completion date is approved by an AIU manager.

33070.10.6 Initial Case Conference

• The AIU investigator shall schedule and conduct an Initial Case Conference within 10 working days of the case assignment for cases that are VA designated, OIGOffice of the Inspector General monitored, or both.

• The Initial Case Conference shall be attended by the investigator, assigned VA, and assigned OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff, to discuss the allegations of misconduct, elements of the various causes of action for discipline, elements of a thorough investigation for the alleged misconduct, and develop an investigative plan, including evidence to obtain and witnesses to interview.

• If during the Initial Case Conference, an allegation(s) of criminal misconduct is identified in the complaint, and reasonable belief exists that the misconduct occurred, the case shall be assigned to a Special Agent. If the case was initially assigned to a level less than Special Agent, the case shall be referred to an AIU manager to determine if the investigation should be assigned or co-assigned to a Special Agent.
  

33070.10.7 Investigations Related to Criminal Misconduct

• If the investigator conducting an investigation into allegations of staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee determines there is a reasonable belief criminal misconduct has occurred, the investigator shall consult with an AIU manager. If the AIU manager concurs with the investigator’s determination that there is a reasonable belief criminal misconduct has occurred, compelled subject interviews shall not be conducted. If the AIU manager determines there is not a reasonable belief criminal misconduct has occurred, the investigator may proceed with compelled subject interviews related to the administrative allegations.

33070.10.8 Criminal Misconduct Discovered During an Investigation

• If allegations of criminal misconduct are identified during the investigation, the investigator shall consult with an AIU manager, assigned VA for designated cases, and OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases. After consultation, if the AIU manager concurs that criminal misconduct has been identified and the investigation has been assigned to a level less than Special Agent, the AIU manager shall determine whether the investigation should be assigned or co-assigned to a Special Agent.

33070.10.9 New Unrelated Allegations of Staff Misconduct Toward an Inmate or Parolee Discovered During an Investigation

• New unrelated allegation(s) are allegations of staff misconduct that are separate in time or scope of the allegation under investigation. If an investigator discovers evidence of new unrelated staff misconduct toward an inmate or parolee, the investigator shall document the staff misconduct in a separate report which summarizes the facts and evidence and forward the report to CST within three business days of discovery.

33070.10.10 Deadly Force Investigations

• Deadly force investigations shall be conducted by the Deadly Force Investigation Teams (DFIT) in accordance with Title 15, section 3268. If an inmate or parolee alleges the use of deadly force, and the deadly force was not previously reported to OIAOffice of Internal Affairs, AIU will conduct the investigation until it is determined that deadly force was used. If AIU determines that deadly force was used, the case shall be referred to DFIT.

33070.10.11 Employee Representation Rights

• Employees are entitled to representation during investigative interviews consistent with the applicable MOUMemorandum Of Understanding, Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, and state and federal law. Employees who are possible subjects or witnesses in the investigation are excluded as employee representatives.

33070.10.12 Recording Interviews During an Investigation

• During AIU investigations, noticed employee interviews concerning matters of staff misconduct shall be audio-recorded. Any audio recording of a noticed investigatory interview shall be:

  • Made openly and with the full knowledge of the employee being interviewed;

  • Included as part of the final report; and

  • Retained in investigation file consistent with the Records Retention Schedule.

• An employee being interviewed as the subject of an investigation may audio-record any portion of the interview and have access to the department’s audio recordings if any further proceedings are contemplated, or prior to any further interrogation at a subsequent time.

• If a subject audio records the interview, they may retain possession of the audio recording upon the conclusion of the interview.

• An employee being interviewed as a witness of an investigation may audio-record the interview, but may not retain the original or a copy of the audio recording. Digital recorders shall not be allowed in witness interviews, unless the employee agrees to relinquish possession of the recorder at the end of the interview. The employee shall have access to the audio recordings made by the department and the employee before any subsequent interview.

• All audio recordings shall be retained with the original investigative file. Audio recordings are part of the investigative file and are confidential.

• This section does not apply to surreptitious recordings conducted during a criminal investigation.

33070.10.13 Investigation Report and Review

33070.10.13.1 Investigation Report Format

• All Investigation Reports shall be submitted in the standard format provided by the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs. The report shall begin with a statement of the allegation(s) or complaint(s), shall provide all relevant facts, and shall include the investigator’s signature. The report shall address material contradictions, but shall not include any conclusions regarding disposition of the investigation.

33070.10.13.2 Drafting Investigation Report, and Manager Review and Approval

• At the conclusion of an investigation, the investigator shall prepare a confidential draft Investigation Report that summarizes the facts and evidence gathered during the investigation, and forward a copy of the draft Investigation Report and supporting exhibits and recordings to an AIU manager for review and approval. Prior to approving the draft investigative report, the AIU manager shall review the draft Investigation Report, and supporting exhibits and recordings, to ensure the Investigation Report is sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased. If the Investigation Report is insufficient, incomplete, or biased, the AIU manager shall return the Investigation Report to the AIU investigator for additional investigation. The AIU manager shall provide a copy of the approved draft Investigation Report to the assigned VA for designated cases, and OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases.

• The assigned VA for designated cases shall review the draft Investigation Report and all supporting exhibits  and  recordings,  and  provide  feedback  to  the  AIU  investigator  within  21 calendar days of receipt of the draft report. The AIU investigator shall also consider any feedback provided by OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff regarding the draft investigation report.

• All Investigation Reports shall be reviewed and approved by an AIU manager. After approval, the final Investigation Report and all supporting exhibits and recordings shall be provided to the VA for designated cases, OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases, and the Hiring Authority.

• In the event the Hiring Authority becomes a witness or a subject of the completed investigation, the final Investigation Report and supporting exhibits and recordings shall be forwarded to the Hiring Authority’s immediate supervisor. A complete copy of the investigation and case file shall be maintained by the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs.

33070.10.13.3 Referral for Prosecution

• If during the course of the investigation, potential criminal misconduct is discovered, the investigator will refer the case to an AIU manager who will determine whether probable cause exists that a crime has been committed. If so, the OIAOffice of Internal Affairs shall refer the final investigative report and exhibits and recordings to the appropriate agency to request criminal prosecution.

33070.10.14 Allegation Investigation Unit Case Tracking System

• AIU may, at its discretion, grant, deny, or remove CTSClassification Tracking System access for any CDCRCalifornia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employee.

33070.11 Allegation Inquiry

33070.11.1 Referral to Hiring Authority for Assignment

• Upon receipt of an allegation of staff misconduct from the Centralized Screening Team (CST), the Hiring Authority or designee shall review the allegation(s) and the associated documents, and assign the allegation inquiry to an LDI. The LDI shall be at least one rank higher than the highest-ranking subject allegedly involved in the misconduct.

33070.11.2 Employee Representation

• Employees are authorized representation during allegation inquiry interviews consistent with any applicable Memorandums of Understanding (MOUMemorandum Of Understanding), Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, and state and federal law. Employees who are possible subjects or witnesses in the investigation are excluded as employee representatives.

33070.11.3 Notification of Interview

• Departmental employees being interviewed by an LDI regarding an allegation of misconduct shall be informed of the following before such interview:

  • Name and classification of the LDI;

  • Name and classification of all other persons to be present during the interview; and

  • The nature of the allegations in sufficient detail to allow the employee to respond to the allegations.
    

33070.11.4 Misconduct on Allegation Decision Index Discovered During Allegation Inquiry

• If the LDI discovers evidence of staff misconduct listed in the ADI, the LDI shall cease further inquiry, document the evidence in an Allegation Inquiry Report, and refer the Allegation Inquiry Report to an AIU manager for review with notification to the Hiring Authority.

• The AIU manager will review the Allegation Inquiry Report to confirm the allegation is listed in the ADI before assigning it to an AIU investigator. If the AIU manager determines the allegation is not listed on the ADI, but the allegation includes misconduct that requires specialized investigative skills or resources to complete, the AIU manager will assign the allegation to an investigator for investigation. If the AIU manager determines the allegation is not listed in the ADI, and does not require specialized investigative skills or resources to complete, the case will be returned to the LDI to complete the allegation inquiry.
  

33070.11.5 Misconduct not in Allegation Decision Index Discovered During Allegation Inquiry

• If the LDI finds evidence of staff misconduct, not listed in the ADI but which may result in adverse action, the LDI shall cease further inquiry, document the evidence in an Allegation Inquiry Report, and refer the allegation inquiry to the Hiring Authority for review. If the Hiring Authority agrees, the Hiring Authority shall refer the Allegation Inquiry Report to AIU for a determination of whether an investigation shall be conducted or direct adverse action approved. If the Hiring Authority does not believe adverse action may result, the matter shall be returned to the LDI for completion of the allegation inquiry.

33070.11.6 Allegation Inquiry Report and Review

33070.11.6.1 Allegation Inquiry Report Format

• Allegation Inquiry Reports shall be submitted in the standard format, and include all relevant facts, and the LDI’s signature. The Allegation Inquiry Report shall identify material contradictions, but shall not include any conclusions regarding disposition of the inquiry. The draft Allegation Inquiry Report shall be provided to the AIU manager for review and approval. Designated institution or program staff shall be responsible for updating the AASTS prior to providing the Allegation Inquiry Report to the AIU manager.

33070.11.6.2 Allegation Inquiry Report Review and Distribution

• The AIU manager shall review the draft Allegation Inquiry Report to determine if the report is sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased. The AIU manager shall then determine one of the following:

  • If the Allegation Inquiry Report is insufficient, incomplete, or biased, the AIU manager shall return the Allegation Inquiry Report to the LDI for additional fact gathering;

  • If the Allegation Inquiry Report is insufficient, but requires an investigation to complete, the AIU manager shall assign the case to an AIU investigator; or

  • If the Allegation Inquiry Report is sufficient, thorough, complete, and unbiased, the AIU manager shall approve the Allegation Inquiry Report and route to the Hiring Authority for review, determination of findings, and whether corrective or disciplinary action is warranted.

• In the event the Hiring Authority becomes a witness or a subject of the allegation inquiry, the Allegation Inquiry Report and supporting documentation shall be forwarded to the Hiring Authority’s immediate supervisor.

• The AIU manager shall update AASTS noting the completion of the inquiry and routing of the final Allegation Inquiry Report to the Hiring Authority.
  

33070.11.6.3 Allegation Investigation Unit Review of Allegation Inquiry Report

• After reviewing the Allegation Inquiry Report, if the Hiring Authority requests an AIU investigation or approval of direct adverse action, the Hiring Authority shall refer the case to AIU.

• An AIU manager, shall review the Allegation Inquiry Report, and in consultation with EAPT, and OIGOffice of the Inspector General staff for monitored cases, make one of the following decisions:

  • An AIU investigation is necessary for the evidence to be sufficient for the Hiring Authority to make findings and impose discipline if warranted; or

  • Further investigation is not likely to obtain additional evidence to support the imposition of discipline; or

  • A preponderance of evidence exists for approval of direct adverse action.

• If the Hiring Authority disagrees with an AIU manager’s decision, the disagreement may be elevated to the AIU Chief for a final decision.
  

33070.12 Maintenance of Investigation and Inquiry Records, Files, and Complaints

• Reports, documents, evidence, and other materials or information relative to any investigation or allegation inquiry shall be processed and stored in a manner precluding unauthorized access or disclosure (refer to PCPenal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8, and Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046). The Hiring Authority shall ensure the proper maintenance and security of inquiry records and files pursuant to PCPenal Code sections 832.5 and 832.7.

33070.13 Purging Investigation and Inquiry Records

• Investigation and allegation inquiry records shall be purged and destroyed as provided in the Records Retention Schedule. Purging may be postponed if litigation or potential litigation is pending, or if there are other justifiable reasons. The Hiring Authority shall forward a request, by memorandum, regarding approval/disapproval to purge investigation and allegation inquiry records to the litigation coordinator and the OLAOffice of Legal Affairs. The Hiring Authority and the OLAOffice of Legal Affairs shall review current litigation with appropriate staff before authorizing, in writing, the purging of these records.

33070.14 Revisions

• The Deputy Director, OIAOffice of Internal Affairs, or designee, shall be responsible for ensuring that the contents of this Article are kept current and accurate.

References

• Government Code sections 3303(f) and (h), 3304(d) and (g), 8547, 11182, and 19635.

• Penal Code sections 550, 832.5, 832.5(b), 832.7 and 832.8, 6065(b)(1), 6065(b)(2), 6126.1, and 6126.1(c).

• Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046.

• Insurance Code section 1871.4.

• CCRCalifornia Code of Regulations (15) sections 3268.1 and 3291(b).

• Madrid v. Tilton, (USDC. No C90-3094 TEH) December 2006.

• Fifth Amendment, USUnder Supervisor Constitution

• Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

• California Whistleblower Protection Act.

Revision History

• Effective December 28, 2022

• Revised January 22, 2026