Data_Collection
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Justice and Courage Committee
Data Collection Committee
May 21, 2003 Meeting
Present: Oli Sadler, DTIS; Belle Taylor-McGhee, Department on the Status of Women, Linda Klee, District Attorney; Sally Pina, Superior Court; Kerry Dalrymple, Emergency Communications; Nixon Lazaro, Adult Probation; Lt. Ellen Brin, Sheriff; Susan Fahey, Sheriff; Reg Smith, District Attorney; Justine McGonagle, Department on the Status of Women.
Oli Sadler called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
After several comments the March 24th and April 23rd minutes were approved, the concerns regarding the minutes to these minutes are as follows:
March 24, 2003, meeting
Sally Pina expressed concerns about the last paragraph of page 1, saying that she thought it should be reworded. Sally agreed to work on a possible rewording and to send it to Justine for inclusion.
April 23, 2003, meeting
Linda Klee mentioned that there were two (2) assistant district attorneys assigned, where she had been speaking about assignments.
In the last paragraph it should read in pertinent part “only cad tapes filed in CMS.”
Linda Klee pointed out that also the D.A. and Adult Probation performed functions that were listed as having been performed by the Sheriff, police and courts.
Item 3 - Discussion
Adult Probation Statistics – Nixon Lazaro of Adult Probation stated that his office does not bank their caseload. Belle Taylor- McGhee inquired about where caseloads were compared with a year ago and Nixon said higher. He also pointed out that there is more awareness, more officers, and a full staff was needed to address issues.
Oli Sadler was interested in the ebb and flow of the issue. For example, of X number of felonies, what happened at a particular time. Nixon pointed out that while male – female DV breakdowns were possible for statistics, same-sex DV breakdowns were difficult. He said that new grants may help. Ollie Sadler mentioned that if there are numerous calls from a location, it could be indicative of a problem.
Linda Klee said that statistical information may mean something different than what one expects. For example, it may look like, as compared to counties, a higher loss rate, but since we rebook 30% more cases, there will be more losses. The cases that other counties fail to rebook are the more difficult cases. We rebook those cases as early intervention in the cycle of violence is the best way to prevent future violence.
Oli Sadler said that part of the issue is education. Belle Taylor-McGhee said that the issue is the resource side of the equation. If a victim is perpetually harassed, is her case flagged by social services?
Linda Klee noted that sometimes the victims will recant, because they are ashamed of admitting what has happened to them, they are afraid to lose the financial support of the defendant or because they have forgiven the defendant. Nixon Lazaro said that his concern was that the SFDA Victim Services Unit was not sharing information with Adult Probation.
Linda Klee stated that the conversations between members of the Victim Witness Unit and the victim are confidential. The purpose of this confidentially is to insulate and put a firewall around the victim services unit, so that the office does not run afoul of the rules of discovery. If the fire wall was not present, under the rules of discovery, we would have to turn confidentially obtained information over to the defense. She mentioned that in other jurisdictions the Victim Witness Unit is physically housed in a separate building.
On the issue of counselors for victims of DV crimes, Belle Taylor McGhee said that there were gaps in the system. She asked How does Adult Probation know if a suspect is re-offending? Sally Pina suggested a protocol that would modify visitation or stay aways. As a condition of probation the party in question might be required to contact the various agencies, including the courts and give maybe the courts can present a handout to clarify what should be done.
The idea of a form to the unified Family Court was discussed. If no children are involved, victims can be given a handout anyway. (i.e. the information can be given to alert them as to the proper procedures as a method of educating the public.) Victim Services could also give out forms.
Belle Taylor-McGhee wanted to know what would happen if a victim called ten (10) times, with half the incidents legitimate calls. Nixon Lazaro suggested that an MTR (Motion to Revoke) would be helpful.
The different standards of care regarding probable cause verses beyond a reasonable doubt were discussed. Nixon Lazaro said that APD investigates every complaint.
Oli Sadler inquired about the training bulletin that is planned for use by the Emergency Communications Departments. The training bulletin will be presented by Kerry Dalrymple of ECD at the June 17th meeting.
A possible ‘gap’ was presented when Linda Klee explained that the general order is to book all felony D.V. cases, but not all misdemeanor cases. She was told by the police department that misdemeanors are only booked if they fall within Penal Code Section 853.6(i). Since continuing offenses are one of the exceptions. The question was “why wasn’t D.V. considered a continuing offense?”
It was also discussed, that in general, misdemeanor D.V. cases were not investigated by the police department. The exception noted to this rule was when a defendant was not arrested and a victim came into the police department requesting an investigation. Then there might be further investigation preparatory to requesting a warrant to arrest the defendant for his or her crimes.
Kerry Dalrymple said that by April, the radio code card will show all D.V. codes. Even if D.V. suspects are not booked, they can be cited.
Nixon Lazarro said that there is intensive supervision of misdemeanor cases at APD.
Sally Pina mentioned that she belongs to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council of California. She offered to see if the group would recommend a change in the law to (1) book all misdemeanors and/or (2) change police protocols to cite all D.V. misdemeanor cases.
It was suggested that if a flyer could be created for DV Court advising victims to contact APD when they violate stay orders, this could help significantly. There was again a discussion as to why all D.V. cases do not fit under 853.6(i)(7). The thought was that by defining D.V. as a continuing offense, this could necessitate the police booking all D.V. offenses.
A question arose concerning the VINES victim notification program and Reg Smith suggested that San Mateo County be contacted because their “people” oriented may address the gaps in VINES such as not being able to call off calls to victims who have moved, creating problems for their successors and not providing the victims with proper notification.
Oli Sadler suggested that next meeting focus on short term fixes.
The meeting ended at approximately 2:55 p.m.
The next meeting of the Data Collection Subcommittee was set for Wednesday, June 18, 2003 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the District Attorney’s Trial Stat Conference Room.
