CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Lisa Kaplan, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Karina Talamantes, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Caity Maple, District 5
Eric Guerra, Vice Mayor, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, Mayor Pro Tem, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
915 I Street, 1st Floor, Sacramento
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
D
escription: Attached is supplemental material received after publishing the agenda the addition of attachment 4 and attachment 5 for Discussion Item 22. The attached staff report and attachments replace the original staff report in its entirety.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 , at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 22
22. Office of Public Safety Accountability’s Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD): Misconduct Complaint Cases - Improper Search and Seizure File ID: 2023-00833
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Contact: Dr. LaTesha Watson, Director, (916) 808-7525, [email protected], Office of Public Safety Accountability
HISTORIC CITY HALL – THIRD FLOOR | 915 I STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 916-808-7525 | [email protected]
CITY OF SACRAMENTO Office of Public Safety Accountability CALIFORNIA Dr. LaTesha Watson, Director
June 18, 2023
An Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD)
Misconduct Complaint Cases- Improper Search and Seizure; Supplemental Rebuttal Comments to SPD Response
OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY ACCOUNTABILITY’S COMMENTS ON THE 6/15/23 RESPONSE
FROM THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF POLICE KATHY LESTER
Purpose of Rebuttal.
To provide clarity and perspective, the Office of Public Safety Accountability is commenting on the response to the Audit from Chief Kathy Lester. OPSA is not able to provide comments to each assertion made by Chief Lester due to the late submittal and the need to have these comments included with the agenda material for the Audit report, which is scheduled to be presented publicly on Tuesday, June 20, 2023. SPD sent this response to OPSA on Thursday night, June 15, 2023, after 9:00p.m.
Timeliness of SPD Response.
OPSA asserts that Chief Lester was given ample time to provide a written response to OPSA regarding the Audit but intentionally did not. Chief Lester made the decision to release her written response to the media rather than adhere to standard Auditing processes. OPSA received multiple requests for additional information from Chief Lester while awaiting a written response. Each request was completed and provided to Chief Lester.
Although OPSA requested to receive the written response by June 2, 2023, Chief Lester advised that she needed an additional 30 days to review the Audit. On Friday, April 28, 2023, Chief Lester requested additional information during an in-person meeting. This request was completed and distributed to Chief Lester on May 3, 2023. Chief Lester acknowledged receipt of the information. On June 2, 2023, Chief Lester requested the Audit’s Appendices and was questioned regarding continuous requests but neglected to provide a written response as OPSA requested. Chief Lester advised that the requested written response would be provided on June 12, 2023.
OPSA did not receive the requested written response on June 12, 2023.
Pursuant to the Sacramento City Code, the City Clerk’s Office required the Audit report and any attachments to be submitted for filing no later than June 15, 2023, by 5:00p.m. Because SPD failed to respond to the Audit, the agenda item for the Audit was submitted to the City Clerk’s Office without a written response from the Sacramento Police Department. Chief Lester attempted to submit her written response to the City Clerk’s Office to be attached to OPSA’s Audit report without submitting the response to OPSA for review.
HISTORIC CITY HALL – THIRD FLOOR | 915 I STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 916-808-7525 | [email protected]
Addressing Statements regarding prior lack of discussion.
We disagree with Chief Lester’s assertion that limited information was provided in the Audit and that the details of this Audit were not discussed in depth. OPSA completed and distributed the Audit, (entitled ‘An Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD): Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure) by email on April 20, 2023, to City Manager Howard Chan and Chief Kathy Lester. At that time, OPSA requested a written response regarding the Audit ‘Findings and Recommendations’ from Chief Lester by May 2, 2023. Chief Lester sent written correspondence requesting additional information as well as 30 days to compare OPSA findings for each case to SPD findings. On April 25, 2023, OPSA asserted that the cases included in this Audit were not new cases and SPD was aware of the disagreements since they had been discussed at previous meetings. Additionally, in October of 2022, prior to providing OPSA with the requested 109 SPD cases for review, Chief Lester directed her staff to conduct an internal Audit of these same cases prior to providing the case files to OPSA to begin our Audit. To date, Chief Lester has not provided OPSA with any information regarding this internal Audit of these cases. In sum, these cases have been reviewed and re-reviewed several times by SPD personnel. The back and forth debating of each case disposition has already occurred. The primary focus should be SPD and OPSA collaborating to work on mitigating Fourth Amendment issues identified in the Audit by developing clear policies and procedures, enhancing officer training, and the necessary follow through to ensure application in the field with police-citizen interactions. The most significant takeaway from this Audit is recognizing that there is room for improvement.
Addressing statistics cited by SPD
OPSA contends that the statistics provided in the response are confusing and do not support its conclusions. Chief Lester’s statement that SPD received 594 total complaints, which included 119 complaints regarding search and seizure is unclear. Chief Lester further states that the complaint totals equate to one complaint of search and seizure for approximately 6,500 calls for service. The leading allegation of misconduct filed on SPD personnel in 2021, 2022, and the 1st quarter of 2023 is the allegation of improper search and search.
Chief Lester states that OPSA reviewed 294 of 310 cases and that OPSA agreed with SPD on 99% (292 of 294) of those cases. It is unclear if there were a total of 310 cases or 294 cases in Chief Lester’s response. OPSA asserts that SPD’s statistics regarding complaints and their respective allegations of misconduct are routinely incorrect.
Chief Lester has been advised during meetings and through written correspondence on multiple occasions that structure is needed within SPD Internal Affairs to ensure the proper intake and release of complaints filed. The frequent occurrences of staff neglecting to complete the required paperwork for the proper intake and release of complaint cases cause inaccurate reporting of statistical information is similar to the incorrect statistical information shared in the SPD response.
Misleading statements regarding OPSA review.
Chief Lester overstates the level of review regarding the cases included in the Audit. The information that Chief Lester shared is misleading and a significant amount of information was omitted from her explanation. Chief Lester’s response stated: “OPSA previously agreed with SPD but had now changed their finding. When asked why OPSA was now reversing their decision and finding, OPSA advised that originally, they had not reviewed cases for Fourth Amendment violations.” These statements are misleading. OPSA stated on page 9 of the Audit report that the Audit included cases in which OPSA agreed with SPD’s findings during the initial case review but later, as part of the in-depth Audit necessitated by multiple community complaints, found Fourth Amendment violations. OPSA has previously provided this explanation to SPD.
HISTORIC CITY HALL – THIRD FLOOR | 915 I STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 916-808-7525 | [email protected]
Chief Lester overstates the level of review regarding the cases included in the Audit. In her response, Chief Lester stated, “Five cases have been adjudicated in a court of law; three motions to evaluate the legal basis for search and seizure (Motion to Suppress) and in each of those cases, the court upheld the basis for the search and/or seizure.” OPSA contends that the fact that a case had been “settled in court” does not mean that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, it does not mean that the department cannot improve their policies and practices, and it does not mean that it will result in a good relationship with the community that it serves.
OPSA asserts that Chief Lester was incorrect and misrepresents information in the Audit report by stating the following in her response: “OPSA inaccurately reported that SPD did not have information for three cases…” SPD personnel informed the OPSA Inspector General that SPD could not find details of the alleged search and seizure incident in two of those cases. SPD made repeated phone calls and sent emails to contact the citizen for follow up information. In these cases, the citizens failed to respond to SPD’s request for additional information.
Therefore, there was no conclusive information in the case file. (IAD2021-227, IAD2021-252) In one case, a citizen made a complaint of improper search and seizure incident in 2020 stemming from traffic stop that took place in 2014. Many of the officers had since retired and there was no body worn camera video to prove or disprove the allegations. Therefore, the disposition was concluded as not sustained. (IAD2021-276)