In just under five years, the civilian oversight board responsible for monitoring the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department issued almost 100 policy recommendations — proposals to officially change rules and requirements in order to improve practices and save lives, time or money.
But the sheriff and chief probation officer rejected or delayed almost two-thirds of those suggestions, saying the proposals pushed by the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board were impractical or unworkable or required further study.
Since January 2020, the oversight panel known as CLERB has issued a total of 91 formal recommendations to Sheriff’s and Probation officials, according to an analysis released by the review board last week.
Of those proposals, 34 were accepted, 29 were rejected and 26 remain under review. Some of the policy recommendations that have yet to be accepted or rejected date back to last year, the review board study shows.
Two recommendations were partially accepted. Those include plans to expand the number of people in jails who are screened by drug-sniffing dogs and to add to what a family liaison officer can tell relatives of people who die or suffer serious injuries in custody.
The lack of action on most of the suggestions comes at a time when both the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department are publicly at odds with the oversight board over unrelated requests for documents and other information. Each of those disputes prompted the review board to hire an outside lawyer, potentially pitting one San Diego County agency against two others in lengthy or costly legal proceedings.
The vast majority of recommendations were made to the Sheriff’s Office — 79 of the 91 noted in the study.
Most of the 29 suggestions accepted by sheriff’s officials were relatively modest, such as amending department business cards to make it easier for the public to identify employees.
The Sheriff’s Office also agreed to help reduce jail deaths by adding family members and medical staff to the list of people called upon to report when someone who has been arrested expresses suicidal tendencies before or during a housing assessment.
But the sheriff rejected 26 different recommendations that would be harder to implement.
For example, Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez refused to require deputies to safety-check people being booked into custody at least once every hour. She also declined to require that deputies only use cells with working surveillance cameras unless no other housing is available.
The sheriff has also repeatedly declined recommendations to body-scan everyone entering county detention facilities as a means of keeping drugs out of jails. Instead, Martinez introduced a random screening process she said would help limit overdoses.
Twenty-two recommendations to the Sheriff’s Office have yet to be accepted or rejected.
Lt. David LaDieu said every policy change presented by the review board undergoes a comprehensive review that evaluates potential impacts on public and employee safety, existing legal frameworks and office resources.
“While not every recommendation has been accepted, many policy changes proposed by CLERB have been implemented,” he said by email. “These changes have led to improvements in areas such as use-of-force guidelines, de-escalation training, in-custody medical care, training and education.”
LaDieu said the length of time it can take the office to respond to policy recommendations does not reflect on the merits of the suggestion.
“The timeline for evaluating recommendations can vary based on their complexity and scope,” he said. “Changes in policy must be evidence-based and tested for real-world application to ensure they serve their intended purpose without unintended negative consequences.”
Probation officials accepted five out of 12 policy recommendations outlined in the CLERB report – including a plan to implement a schedule for home inspections of facilities that are contracted to house people under their jurisdiction.
The review board report said the department rejected three recommendations and has yet to complete assessments of four others.
One of the CLERB suggestions that failed to meet Probation Department approval was a rule barring employees from any involvement with racist or other discriminatory groups — including on social media.
“Such participation or association undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Probation Department and creates doubt that all communities will be served equitably,” the CLERB analysis said.
The board also recommended that Probation managers regularly review employees’ publicly available social media posts as well as department-issued cellphones and computers for biased or discriminatory content.
But Chief Probation Officer Tamika Nelson said she lacked the budget she would need to monitor her staff’s social media posts.
“This recommendation presents challenges that currently we are not able to meet,” she wrote to the board. “However, should our staffing resources and fiscal outlook improve in the future, we will reassess adopting this recommendation.”
The Sheriff’s Office received the same policy recommendation and also rejected the idea.
Probation Department spokesperson Chuck Westerheide said the office values its relationship with CLERB and seriously considers all of its policy recommendations.
“The review process involves consultation and coordination with necessary and appropriate personnel who have subject matter expertise in those policy areas to ensure compliance with federal and state laws and regulations,” he said by email.
“Additionally, those policies need review to ensure they are in alignment with best practices,” Westerheide added. “The Probation Department looks forward to further coordination with CLERB to protect public safety and support those who are justice involved.”
San Diego County’s two primary law enforcement agencies are both embroiled in high-profile disputes with the civilian board established to oversee them.
In separate cases unfolding over the past two months, both Martinez and Nelson have withheld information from CLERB as it has sought to hold the Sheriff’s Office and Probation Department accountable to the public.
Sheriff’s officials took the unusual position of asserting that the review board lacks authority over the department, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported early last month. They argue CLERB can only investigate individual deputies — not the agency as a whole.
“The sheriff believes that the sustained findings of misconduct against the entire Sheriff’s Office, as the subject officer(s), do not fall within the San Diego County charter, nor the authority granted to CLERB by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors,” Martinez wrote.
That claim came after the review board repeatedly issued misconduct findings against the Sheriff’s Office in cases involving fatal drug overdoses.
In another dispute that became visible just last week, sheriff’s officials for months have been withholding documents and other information requested by a consulting firm hired by the review board.
The company was hired in 2022 to figure out why so many people die in San Diego County jails, and what changes the agency could make to reduce “excess deaths” in custody.
Rather than provide the information, the Sheriff’s Office directed the consultants to request the documents under the California Public Records Act. The researchers filed multiple requests but have not received the records.
The result “has been a protracted and frustrating attempt to acquire the needed data from the Sheriff’s Office, which has been largely unsuccessful,” CLERB Chair MaryAnne Pintar wrote in a letter to the sheriff.
“Despite numerous CPRA requests … the data has not been fully provided, with multiple requests denied or delayed,” she added.
Probation chief Nelson has adopted a similar strategy in processing CLERB requests.
Twice in recent months, the Probation Department withheld documents the review board sought as part of investigations. Those cases later had to be closed due to the lack of cooperation.
Westerheide insisted the county must protect the rights of people in custody.
“If Probation improperly releases juvenile case-file information it will violate the law and the youth’s privacy rights — the effects of which could be catastrophic for the youth’s rehabilitation,” the spokesperson said by email.
