Despite concerns with DJJ’s investigative processes, they do not violate law, SLED finds - The State

Sen. Katrina Shealy, R-Lexington, joins protesters at DJJ

DJJ workers walk out, citing 24-36 hour shifts as major complaint

• captions off, selected

UP NEXT:

Despite identifying significant issues with aspects of the state juvenile justice department’s investigation of criminal allegations, an independent review found no evidence of criminal conduct, intentional neglect of duties or failure to comply with South Carolina reporting statutes.

The State Law Enforcement Division performed its review earlier this year at the request of Gov. Henry McMaster. It came after lawmakers raised concerns about possible misconduct at the S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice following the release of a scathing legislative audit and troubling testimony by its former director.

While SLED’s review of six months of agency case files did not uncover criminality, it did find that the quality of criminal investigations performed by the Juvenile Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General were uneven and its investigators lacked the training and equipment necessary to do their jobs at a consistently high level.

“SLED’s review of the above referenced case files yielded significant concerns,” the agency’s report notes. “Oftentimes an (Office of Inspector General) investigative case file is not reflective of a professional law enforcement work product.”

Rather than adhering to a clear and consistent investigative standard, juvenile justice probes were arbitrary and of varying quality. Sometimes cases were submitted to a chief investigator for review while other times they went straight to a prosecutor.

Reports were sometimes completed only after an investigation was closed, or not completed at all, and the organization and level of detail recorded in case files largely depended on the investigator who completed them, SLED found.

“Investigative reports and memorandum of interviews are often full of grammatical issues and a stunning lack of detail,” the report notes. “It is not uncommon that a (memorandum of interviews) will contain only one or two sentences, rather than a thorough account of the interview.”

The inconsistencies between case files are problematic, according to the report, because they make transferring the case from one investigator to another “difficult, if not impossible.”

The agency’s failure to supply investigators with audio and video recording equipment, or a designated space to conduct interviews, likely contributed to the inadequate documentation of investigative interviews, SLED found.

The majority of interviews are not conducted in person, but rather occur over the phone or via a videoconferencing platform like Microsoft Teams. In-person interviews are especially rare at facilities outside of Columbia, because all of the department’s investigators are based in the capital city.

Without a formal interviewing area, in-person questioning is often done in an open cubicle environment or common area within the inspector general’s office.

“The practices of not conducting in-person interviews and conducting interviews in a common area are problematic,” SLED’s report states. “Similarly, the lack of any regionalized SCDJJ investigative resources is also disadvantageous.”

Prosecuting crimes at juvenile justice facilities is challenging even when investigations are conducted competently because witnesses are often uncooperative or potentially unreachable once they’ve been released from custody, so the lack of adherence to consistent investigative protocols makes prosecution doubly hard.

Prosecutors from across the state expressed varying opinions about working with DJJ’s inspector general’s office. Some said they were satisfied with the agency’s work product, accessibility and communication, while others had a negative impression of their working relationship and conveyed concerns about which cases were prosecuted and which were handled internally without criminal charges, according to SLED.

Solicitors who complained about the juvenile justice agency reported having trouble obtaining reports and records from its inspector general’s office in a timely fashion. In one instance documented by SLED, a solicitor could not prosecute a juvenile because he had been released from custody and was no longer living in the area by the time investigators turned over the case report.

Those investigative issues aside, state police did not uncover any significant failures of DJJ investigators to report certain criminal activity to SLED, as required by a memorandum of understanding between the agencies.

One possible exception, which could be chalked up to a misinterpretation of the agreement, involved an incident in which a juvenile allegedly groped a female DJJ staff member.

Because the incident could reasonably have been considered a “sexual assault,” it should have been reported to SLED rather than investigated internally and sent to the solicitor’s office, the report found.

The state police review also determined that Juvenile Justice officials had complied with South Carolina’s mandatory reporting statute, despite accusations by lawmakers earlier this year that the agency’s policy of investigating abuse and neglect internally violated state law.

SLED recommends DJJ reform investigative policies

SLED’s review recommended the Department of Juvenile Justice take a series of actions to improve its investigative processes, starting with hiring an inspector general.

The agency’s Office of the Inspector General has been without one for more than a year.

Acting Director Eden Hendrick last month told a Senate panel she was working on filling the “extremely important” position, but cautioned it could be challenging to find someone willing to accept an at-will position working for a potentially temporary director.

SLED also recommended Juvenile Justice officials hire a victims’ advocate or assign someone to notify the families of juveniles who are victims, witnesses or subjects of crimes since no one currently serves in that role.

The high caseloads investigators sometimes struggle to manage could be alleviated by allowing DJJ’s gang investigators, which some prosecutors were not aware even existed, to assist with more investigations into violence between juveniles, according to SLED.

The review also advised spreading investigators throughout the state, rather than locating them only in Columbia, to improve problems with time management and the slow turnaround of cases in regional facilities.

To ensure the agency’s investigations are performed more thoroughly and professionally, SLED recommended providing investigators dedicated recording equipment, a designated, private location for conducting interviews and advanced training in interrogations and report writing.

State police also advised enforcing more strict case management and organization policies, to ensure case files are uniform and all relevant evidence can be reviewed and evaluated by prosecutors, if need be.

Lastly, SLED recommended that juvenile justice investigators establish better lines of communication with prosecutors across the state so criminal cases can be disposed of in a timely manner.

A Juvenile Justice spokesman did not respond to questions about SLED’s review of the agency’s investigative processes by deadline, so it isn’t clear whether officials have acted on any of SLED’s recommendations.

The agencies have, however, updated their memorandum of understanding to expand and clarify the types of incidents Juvenile Justice officials should notify state police about.

source: https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article255766831.html

Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.