Board Declines To Adopt Majority Of Grand Jury's Recommendations For RivCo Jails

RIVERSIDE, CA — Riverside County supervisors Tuesday signed off on an Executive Office report — and a separate one filed by Sheriff Chad Bianco — that asserted the county will not implement some recommendations from a grand jury to improve jail operations, but will take others under consideration.

"The action of the Board of Supervisors today does not create or reject a specific oversight model," county CEO Jeff Van Wagenen said Tuesday. "The county's position is that transparency and accountability matter."

The Executive Office and Sheriff's Department each issued responses to the 19-member civil Grand Jury's findings, published in June, that emphasized the need for a change in how the county's five detention facilities are operated, and what policy measures are overdue to ensure deficiencies that jurors believe contributed to fatalities in previous years are resolved.

"An alarming number of in-custody deaths, combined with questions about internal investigative practices and the absence of independent oversight, has raised ongoing concerns about safety, transparency and accountability of Riverside County jail operations," the grand jury said in its 26-page report. "Failure to implement independent oversight and custodial reforms exposes the county to significant civil liability, particularly in cases involving in-custody deaths."

Jurors determined through their own comprehensive investigation that the county would benefit from an inspector general's office to monitor and report on correctional operations, or a civilian oversight board empowered to conduct independent investigations and make recommendations to the board — all of which is authorized, but not mandated, legislatively.

The Executive Office said the recommendation for an independent body "requires further analysis." Officials further touted the formation in July of an ad-hoc committee to scrutinize jail policies and practices, saying the panel will likely achieve some of the results that the grand jury advocated.

The sheriff's report replied that the proposal "will not be implemented because the recommendation is not warranted."

Jurors also supported creation of a "five-year strategic plan for jail operations that includes measurable benchmarks, data transparency goals (and) compliance auditing procedures." The sheriff's department called the idea a "blatant disregard for current operating procedures and shows the complete bias of this supposed (grand jury) investigation to develop the report."

The Executive Office's response was tepid, saying that while a long- range plan might be appropriate, the ad-hoc committee would likely have a better answer on how to go about establishing operational objectives when it returns with findings for the board in January.

The Executive Office and Bianco jointly rejected jurors' recommendation for dissolving the Sheriff's Advisory Committee, which has been around since the prior decade, because SAC "has not demonstrated measurable advisory output" and has never published meeting minutes, "formal findings or written recommendations" accessible to the public, according to the jury.

It highlighted the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement's components for achieving effective watchdog processes, recommending that NACOLE's best practices be implemented.

The Executive Office answered that adoption of NACOLE's standards is "not warranted or reasonable." While officials acknowledged protocols might be "useful" at times, they don't necessarily justify a new "operational framework," officials said. The sheriff's report went further, saying NACOLE does not "have any influence, control or ability to direct operations within the constitutionally formed office of the sheriff."

The Executive Office was non-committal on jurors' recommendation for hiring an "independent correctional health and custodial operations expert" to audit jail intake operations and procedures, imparting that the proposal might be worth considering. The sheriff's department dismissed the recommendation entirely, insisting the grand jury's effort was "a predetermined attempt to force or intimidate the board and the sheriff to comply with the demands of activists."

Jurors' recommendation for a quarterly online "dashboard" where the public can view data on in-custody deaths, use-of-force incidents, suicide attempts and medical emergencies was not opposed by the Executive Office, and the sheriff signaled acceptance of the proposal, saying it "will be implemented in the future."

Citing "systemic deficiencies" in jail operations, the grand jury pointed to instances where the county had been successfully sued, with multimillion-dollar payouts to families of inmates who died in custody. The county ranks in the top three statewide for correctional system fatalities that occurred over the previous decade, according to published reports. The year 2022 was particularly bad, with around 20 documented deaths in county lockups.

The sheriff's report countered that during that year, 110 inmates were resuscitated by deputies or medical personnel after they had ingested deadly drugs, while 96 suicide attempts were "thwarted," and correctional staff "intercepted drugs on 438 occasions," potentially savings hundreds more lives.

None of the supervisors offered individual responses to the grand jury, Executive Office or sheriff's reports.