California Grand Jury Report on Deaths at Riverside County Jails
by Michael Dean Thompson
The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury has released a new report regarding oversight of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RSCO). The June 2026 report found the extant Sheriff’s Advisory Committee (SAC) “activities, documentation practices, and public transparency raised significant questions about its ability to fulfill its advisory function.” As a result, the report identified nine findings and included corresponding recommendations, as well as recommending the dissolution of the Sheriff’s Advisory Committee.
The grand jury report comes as a California Department of Justice (CDOJ) investigation that, while initiated in February of 2023, is still ongoing. Although the CDOJ investigation began in response to a record number of in-custody deaths in 2021, RCSO leadership has characterized it as politically motivated. Even with an ongoing CDOJ investigation, there were another 29 in-custody deaths in the following 38 months, which the grand jury identifies as underscoring the need for structural change. And while RCSO leadership has appeared to support the grand jury process, it has also expressed opposition to civilian oversight as outlined in AB 1185. The law allows counties to establish civilian oversight bodies with the potential for subpoena power and continuous auditing of the sheriff’s office operations. The grand jury concluded the RCSO’s opposition may not have been directed at the oversight itself, but at “concerns regarding structure, composition, and perceived bias” of bodies created under the law.
The grand jury recognized its own limits as an advisory body. As a result, it looked to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), which has established nationally recognized standards. The “Standards and Guidelines for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement” identifies five core components: structural independence, clearly defined legal authority, investigative access, transparency and public reporting, and professional competence. NACOLE identifies that effective oversight serves “as a bridge between the public and law enforcement.”
But that oversight is missing in Riverside, according to the grand jury. In contrast to San Bernardino, Orange, San Diego and Los Angeles counties, Riverside is the least AB 1185 compliant, having no formal independent oversight.
The recommendations offered by the grand jury begin with creating an AB 1185-compliant, independent civilian oversight body. As in the NACOLE standards, that body should have its own budget and staffing, as well as public reporting requirements and the authority to investigate issues while being protected from removal without cause.
In order to address RCSO’s political concerns, the oversight body should also have defined appointment and vetting procedures. The remaining recommendations either hinge on the establishment of the civilian oversight body or identify further audit and investigations that need to be performed, including a review of all in-custody deaths to be made publicly available within 18 months of the body’s creation.
It remains to be seen which, if any, of the grand jury’s recommendations will be adopted by the county. Meanwhile, the current lack of independent oversight “is not a mere policy gap; it presents measurable governance risk.” Thousands of individuals are at risk of being the next death statistic, and many of them are still presumed to be innocent as they await trial.
Source: 2025-2026 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury Report
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login