0m4q

ez<m0m_mm - mmo_u_u_O 25 some 05 :0 mcomumz
_vo\mN\oH 2: .0000 05 no 23:00.. m:_u:nEE00 05 30.2: .3: an =25 3:9: _0 och

E0008 A220: 02.0030 20 .0 00.003 >=.Eoo 05 0. :02. 022 .o>0aw
00.20 new m_ :02? can OF. >0 :02. 03300.3.

0ocou_>o o_nm__a>a =0 >__w:cEmn:m .0 0:000. 5:23 .0 .2 ._ozmE ?5 5
ommof %Nm_mm mam >oEo=< 
>Snm_o 02. >Sn_mo >S._mo >.Snma 
4/ 

zo_E_mommo
Em_oE:m:_ - 2: r0n_ >m<w 5
zomfim .02 ozxm m=2<z Emamam .02
I-no 1- MW
.u.2__8u =o_so$2n_ >>mm:mvE0>> mwm<:o
motto <0 32 2.5 mo me 02 mw<o mo_._on_ ._u0E :o_.mnEn_ 
voom Km 520.00 "mama <<mm Sovm ._o_2wm:_um: 
. _o $3 .02 mm<o 3 . . . a mm._m_oz< wo._

Charge Evaluation Woneet I

J.S.I.D. File 
L.A.S.D. File #404-00040-2003-441
Page 2

The Justice System Integrity Division of the Los Angeles County District Attomey's
Office has completed its review of allegations that Los Angeles County Sheriff' Deputy
Gary Novelich, #450611, filed a false police report, a violation of Penal Code Section
118.1. For the reasons set forth below, this office declines to initiate criminal
proceedings in this matter.

FACTUAL ANALYSIS

The following analysis is based on reports prepared by the Los Angeles County Sheriff' 
Department submitted to this office on August 23, 2004 by Sergeant Allen Kunihiro,
Intemal Criminal Investigations Bureau. We have not considered any administratively
compelled statement Deputy Novelich may have made.

In June of 2004, Deputy Novelich applied to the Huntington Beach Police Department
and the Westminster Police Department to become a police officer. At the time of his
application, he was assigned to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Compton
Station. During pre-employment polygraph examinations given by both departments, he
stated that he had previously written inaccurate police reports while employed as a
deputy sheriff and had testified under oath in court in a manner consistent with the police
reports. Investigators spoke to the polygraph examiner who conducted-the interview for
the Huntington Beach Police Department. During the interview, Deputy Novelich
explained that he was trained to write arrest reports that did not reflect the proper
sequence of events, but that were "cleaner reports." He stated that in the areas where he
was assigned, many arrestees carried guns and narcotics and he was taught to write the
arrest report to state that the contraband had been recovered during a search incident to
arrest. -Deputy Novelich also stated that most deputies wrote reports in a similar manner.
The polygraph examiner for the Huntington Beach Police Department stated that Deputy
Novelich did not mention the number of arrest reports he had written in this manner, nor
did he state a number of times he testified inaccurately in court.

Investigators also spoke to the polygraph examiner for the Westminster Police
Department who conducted the pre-employment interview of Deputy Novelich. Deputy
Novelich stated that he had written inaccurate police reports 20 to 100 times. Deputy
Novelich gave as an example a situation in which he would stop an individual on the
street, conduct a pat-down search, retrieve narcotics, then conduct a warrant check. When
Deputy Novelich would arrest such an individual for an outstanding warrant, he would
write in the report that the narcotics were recovered incident to the arrest for the
outstanding warrant. Deputy Novelich implied, in his hypothetical, that his initial stop
was based upon suspicions that he had about the individual. Deputy Novelich did not
actually state that he believed he lacked probable cause when he conducted the initial
search.

Deputy Novelich declined to make a statement to the investigators assigned to the
Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau.

Charge Evaluation Wonieet I

J.S.I.D. File 
L.A.S.D. File #404-00040-2003-441
Page 3

Investigators interviewed deputies who worked with Deputy Novelich who stated that
they had not known him to falsify reports. Fellow deputies further stated that they did not
know of a situation where Deputy Novelich encouraged trainees to manufacture probable
cause when writing reports.

CONCLUSION

Penal Code Section 118.1 states that "every peace officer who files any report with the
agency which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any
investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any statement
regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to be false. . .is guilty
of filing a false report. . Materiality is an essential element of the crime of perjury and
must be determined by the jury. People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395. Materiality
depends upon "whether the false statements concem a subject [which] could reasonably
influence the outcome of the proceedings." at 405.

Further, the corpus delicti of a crime must be proved independent of an admission or
confession by the defendant. CALJIC 2.72 -states, in pertinent part, that "No person may
be convicted of a criminal offense unless there is some proof of each element of the crime
independent of any confession or admission 'made by him."

Insufficient evidence exists upon which to base criminal charges against Deputy
Novelich. In this matter there is no evidence consisting of an actual police report in which
statements were proved to be knowingly false. Deputy Novelich's statement alone does
not provide sufficient evidence upon which to initiate criminal proceedings against him.
Further, the lack of a police report containing known falsehoods deprives this office of
the opportunity to analyze whether the falsehoods were material, as required in a
prosecution under Penal Code Section 118.1.

We are closing our file and will take no further action in this matter.