| Beverly Claypool, Chairman |
| Herbert Harder, M. D. |
| Jeanne L. Kennedy |
An important function of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury is to review and respond to citizens' complaints. These complaints come from members of the community as well as inmates housed in County and State facilities.
The 1998-99 Grand Jury received various complaints. Many were from State prisoners and/or concerned issues over which the Grand Jury had no authority to investigate. Federal and state agencies including courts are outside the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury's investigative powers. The jurisdiction of the Grand Jury is limited by statute and includes the following:
Citizens' complaints are submitted on forms which are provided to any citizen upon request. The Grand Jury Legal Advisor receives the complaint, and acknowledges receipt of the complaint to the complainant.
The Legal Advisor then prepares a letter to the Citizens' Complaints Committee summarizing the complaint, and recommending various remedies which may be available. The Committee then reviews the complaint and the Legal Advisor's recommendations and then determines what action should be taken, if any.
The committee members carefully review and discuss each complaint received. Many of the complaints are then forwarded to other committees. For example, if an inmate from the county jail complains that he or she is not receiving certain prescribed medication, the complaint is forwarded to the Grand Jury Criminal Justice or Jails Committee; or, if a citizen complains that a restaurant is unsanitary and the County Health Department is not being proactive in responding, the Complaints Committee may refer the matter to the Health and Human Services Committee of the Grand Jury for further review.
After the Citizen Complaints Committee completes it's examination of a complaint, the matter, including a disposition recommendation, is brought before the entire Grand Jury for its consideration. If a preliminary investigation is completed and no further action seems warranted, the complaint will be placed in the closed file. However, if more study or investigation is necessary, then the complaint must remain open until completed or referred to other sources, such as the District Attorneys' office or the warden of the state prison named in the complaint.
Complaints
The complaints that the 1998-99 Grand Jury received for consideration are as follows:
2) Overcharged rents in a mobile home park
Alleged miscarriage of justice
98-66
DA's Office did not file criminal case
98-67
Alleged cover-up of PUSD employee sexual misconduct
98-71
Alleged money wasted on a courthouse project
98-75
Pasadena City College alleged student discrimination
98-78
Glendale Redevelopment illegal repurchase agreement
98-79
Alleged irregularities in Diamond Bar election
98-80
Alleged cheating within Compton Unified School District
98-81
Alleged bribery of federal judges
99-01
Fire Alarm systems in HUD building
99-02
Levy of alleged illegal tax for hazardous waste
99-03
Pasadena police officer accused of threats
99-04
Lost Hills Sheriff Department mistreatment of mentally ill
99-06
Alleged waste in L. A. County 97/98 budget
99-07
Alleged conspiracy to convict
99-08
Alleged perjury
99-10
Alleged mistreatment of a suspected shoplifter
99-12
Bureau of Child Support mishandling of case
99-13
A state prisoner attempted suicide
99-15
Alleged mistreatment of suspect
99-16
Alleged illegal sale of suspects' vehicle
99-17
Study of building project in Pomona
99-18
Alleged retaliation against a complainant by D.P.S.S.
99-19
Alleged violation of state prisoners' rights
99-20
Denial of restraining order
99-21
Alleged unfair practices of County Tax Collector
99-22
Alleged illegal activities of Irwindale Police and D. A.
99-23
Alleged corruption and violations at a school district
99-24
Alleged violation of state prisoners' rights
99-25
Child support inaccurate billing
99-26
1) Alleged misconduct by a City Superintendent
99-27
Alleged abuse of prisoner by state prison guard
99-28
Alleged harassment of Pasadena student
99-29
Alleged guard misconduct in a state prison
99-31
Alleged fraud and slow investigation
99-32
Lack of hot water at a juvenile hall
99-33
Alleged mistreatment and misplaced property of state prisoner
99-34
Alleged burglary committed at Russ Hotel
99-35
Alleged improper use of city funds in Bell Gardens
99-36
State prison officer investigation
99-37
Alleged Human Rights violations
99-38
Complaints of the entire child support system
99-39
Alleged lack of medical attention of state prisoner
99-40
Complaints about Dept. Of Land Management in Inyo
99-41
Alleged inappropriate classification transfer of state prisoner
99-42
Alleged unjust reclassification of a state prisoner
99-43
Alleged attorney misrepresentation in child custody
99-44
Alleged police officer misconduct
99-45
Alleged mistreatment and inappropriate housing by county
99-46
Complaint by inmate
99-47
Alleged abuse in juvenile camp
99-48
Alleged ethics violation in City Council
99-49
Miscellaneous complaints
99-50
Alleged misconduct of judges and district attorneys
99-51
Trial continuance problems
99-52
Alleged violation of civil and constitutional rights
99-53
Alleged misconduct of a police officer
99-54
Jurisdictional issues for L.A.F.C.O.
99-55
Alleged discrimination in awarding contracts
99-56
Alleged mental health contract discrimination
99-57
Alleged misconduct of officer
99-58
Neighbor complains of barking dog
99-59
Alleged wrongful incarceration for spousal abuse
99-60
Complaint of judicial procedures
99-61
Request for intervention in tenant/landlord dispute
99-62
Background information regarding previous complaint
99-63
Alleged destruction of property in a state prison
99-64
Alleged racism and discrimination
Due to time requirements of indictment hearings, the Grand Jury Complaints Committee feels that it has neither the time nor the resources to properly review thecircumstances and validity surrounding each complaint received. In the past, an experienced investigator was made available to the Grand Jury by the District Attorney's Office to assist with the Committee's inquiry.
It is recommended that:
It is the recommendation of the 1998-99 Grand Jury, that the District Attorney reinstitute the practice of having a trained investigator available on an "as needed" basis starting with the new 1999-2000 Grand Jury.