Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 17, 1982 (60)F "v£+ & J'9_.. -�. 'K+...E4 L9-%y.A^.@'�wnu✓Mn?'r...u.e........... '__...w+u.•r'6..wnr.•JrrIrJA✓•vrnY-bumf:'.rN..t_Yd.9T>+:TiPFRan.MWM?. .v NOW, GRAND JURY REPORT RE INVESTIGATION OF LPD City Cleric Reimche read the following report received from Reed Robbins, Foreman, Grand Jury, County of San Joaquin. "Interim Report #1 November 10, 1982 Investigation of Lodi Police Det at Request of fro, City of Lodi The Grand Jury received frau the Mayor of Lodi, California, Mr. Fred Reid, a letter outlining a muber of caiplaints and allegations againt the Lodi Police Department. These include: 1. Falsifying police reports; 2. Illegal stops and seizures; 3. Brutality; 4. Vulgar and abusive language; S. Harassment; 6. Erployees stopped; 7. Spotters on the roof with radios; 8. officers staking out cars and bars. Generally, replies to complaints and allegations such as these are not released to the public. The Grand Jury receives many ocaplaints of this nature regarding other agencies of this County and after investigation issues a Continued Novenber 17, 1982 private letter or makes no report. However, because of the notoriety given this matter by the newspapers, City Council g- and Mr. Mitchell we felt it only right that our findings be made public. In our investigation we interviewed Mr. Mitchell, Lodi Police Department Personnel, County Counsel, Deputy District Attorney, the City Manager, and many concerned citizens of the Lodi area. Findings The complaints and allegations can be boiled down to three 1. The lack of probable cause for arrests; 2. Harassment by staking out bars at night; 3. A "point system" used by the Lodi Police Department in the Performance Evaluation Reports system to evaluate personnel. The Grand Jury feels it would be presumptuous of the Grand Jury to even discuss "probable cause" as this issue can only be determined by the Court at the time of the hearing. In regards to harassment by staking out the bars at night, the Grand Jury found there had been no legal improprieties in this complaint. A detailed review was made of the "point system" as used in the Police Performance Evaluation_ Reports and again it was found there were no legal improprieties. The points for motor vehicle violations are only one of a number of items used in evaluating the personnel of the police department. It appears, however, that the paint system has been a strong incentive in vehicle stops. Therefore, it is suggested that the City Council revalLate the use of points as pertains to motor vehicle violations. Respectfully, Reed Robbins, Foreman" Councilman Pinkerton indicated his displeasure in that the City Manager was given a copy of the subject report before Council Members received their copies. It was indicated that copies went to the Council and the City Manager at the approximate same time, when the packets were prepared and distributed. Mayor Pro Tempore Murphy asked about the reports release to the public and press prior to it being received by the City of Lodi. 1� Grand, -J r County o cOAP4.S411 ttt aguin 37 Sas CAST wC8C AVCHus.. •.( • 1 - rta�l i►. STDCKTDM. CAfIfjk'J6 .9ss #, Ct"t : CLlc�;;t � LC , INTERIM REPORT !1 November 10, 1982 Investigation of Lodi Police Department at Request of City of Lodi The Grand Jury received from the Mayor of Lodi, California, Mr. Fred Reid, a lettei outlining a number of complaints and allegations against the Lodi Police Department. These include: 1. Falsifying police reports; 2. Illegal stops and seizures; 3. Brutality; 4. Vulgar and abusive language S. harassment; 6. Employees stopped; T. Spotters on the roof with radios; 8. Officers staking out cars and bars. Generally, replies to complaints and allegations such as these are not released to the public. The Grand Jury receives many complaints of this nature regarding other agencies of this County and after investigation issues a private letter or makes no report. However, because of the notoriety given this matter by the newspapers. City Council and Hr. Mitchell we felt it only right that our findings be made public. In our investigation we interviewed Mr. Mitchell, Lodi Police Department personnel, County Counsel, Deputy District Attorney, the City Manager, and many concerned citizens of the Lodi area.