Nevada County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
The cultivation of marijuana in Nevada County has grown exponentially in the past ten years.
F2:
There is public knowledge of the growth of marijuana cultivation in Nevada County.
F3:
Many cultivators of marijuana do and want to follow proper environmental practices in cultivation.
F4:
Irresponsible cultivators of marijuana have caused significant environmental damage.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Empanel an interdepartmental working group to coordinate all information pertaining to environmental dangers and public safety issues caused by marijuana cultivations.
F5:
Irresponsible cultivators of marijuana are a threat to public safety in Nevada County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Empanel an interdepartmental working group to coordinate all information pertaining to environmental dangers and public safety issues caused by marijuana cultivations.
F6:
Nevada County has numerous ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to land use.
F7:
The Jury received contradictory information as to the application of ordinances, rules and regulations in Nevada County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Enforce the legal application of existing land use ordinances.
F8:
Many of these ordinances, rules and regulations should be applied to the practice of marijuana cultivation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Enforce the legal application of existing land use ordinances.
F9:
The Jury was unable to find evidence that any records are being maintained regarding interdepartmental cooperation of marijuana grow referrals.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Empanel an interdepartmental working group to coordinate all information pertaining to environmental dangers and public safety issues caused by marijuana cultivations.
R3:
Document and track interdepartmental referrals pertaining to marijuana cultivation violations.
F10:
One consistent theme received by the Jury from County staff, was that any and all enforcement of any ordinances, rules and regulations that pertained to the cultivation of marijuana was the sole responsibility of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Develop policies and procedures defining the responsibilities of each department as it pertains to environmental issues surrounding marijuana cultivation.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The physical facilities of all four evidence handling units are adequate and, where needed, extra space is being considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Consolidation of the Grass Valley Police Department and the Nevada City Police Department evidence handling units should be considered again. [F8]
F2:
The staff at all four evidence handling units appear to be well-trained and capable. The use of sworn officers in the Nevada City Police Department Evidence Handling Unit removes patrol officers from their primary duties to the detriment of efficient law enforcement. The Nevada City Police Department is seeking to replace the sworn officers performing evidence handling duties with a non-sworn employee or volunteer.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Alternatively, the Nevada City Police Department should expedite its efforts to obtain and train a non-sworn evidence technician to reduce personnel costs and to free sworn officers for their primary duties. [F8]
F3:
Three of the evidence handling units have adopted and follow written policies and procedures that are in line with recommended best practices. The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office’s written policies and procedures are out-of-date and its actual policies and procedures are adequate only because of well-trained and skillful evidence technicians. The most experienced of those technicians is about to retire.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department should draft and adopt written policies and procedures for its Sheriff’s Property Unit that accurately reflect the current actual practice of its evidence technicians and that are in compliance with the current state of the law and best practices as recommended by POST and Lexipol. [F3]
F4:
The police department evidence handling units are marginally in compliance with their own policies and procedures and with best practices concerning audits and inventories of the evidence handling units although they all are due or overdue for biennial external audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department should immediately arrange for a complete external audit of its Sheriff’s Property Unit. [F5]
F5:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office’s Sheriff’s Property Unit has not been subjected to an external audit since 2007 and there are no written records of any internal audits, inventories or inspections since that time. Hence, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office’s Sheriff’s Property Unit is out of compliance with its own written policies and procedures and with best practices concerning audits and inventories of evidence handling units.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department should conduct a complete inventory of its Sheriff’s Property Unit upon the retirement of its senior evidence technician. [F3 &
F6:
Best practices dictate that all agencies should rigorously adhere to the requirement for a complete inventory upon a change of evidence technician or supervisor. Additionally, random spot inventories need to be performed and documented. Inventories of firearms, narcotics and money must be conducted on at least a quarterly basis. Finally, external audits must be conducted on a biennial basis at a minimum.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Department should require that there be periodic spot inventories of its Sheriff’s Property Unit and should require that written records of those spot inventories be maintained. [F5]
F7:
All four evidence handling units spend considerable time in purging and disposing of evidence that is no longer needed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
All agencies should rigorously adhere to the requirement for a complete inventory upon a change of evidence technician or supervisor. Additionally, random spot inventories need to be performed and documented. Inventories of firearms, narcotics and money must be conducted on at least a quarterly basis. Finally, external audits must be conducted on a biennial basis at a minimum. [F3]
F8:
Three evidence handling units expressed concerns about the timeliness of evidence disposition authorization from the Nevada County District Attorney’s office. Such delays adversely affect the ability to purge evidence in a timely fashion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Nevada County District Attorney should continue to develop and improve its process for authorizing the disposal of evidence. [F7]
F9:
Given the size of the Nevada City Police Department, maintaining its own evidence handling unit creates a burden in terms of space, manpower and cost. In the past, the Grass Valley Police Department and the Nevada City Police Department considered consolidating their separate evidence handling units into one central evidence handling unit.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The Supervisors receive two hours of ethics training on a bi-annual basis.
F2:
The citizens of Nevada County expect and deserve that their elected officials serve the public’s interests, not private or political interests.
F3:
While legal requirements are specific, ethical decisions are personal and have significant influence on perceptions of the public when evaluating Supervisor actions and transparency.
F4:
The Supervisors are ethical people who conduct their business with good intent.
F5:
Most of the Supervisors believe ethics refers to the Form 700 filings required from elected officials each year by the FPPC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Seek additional training and information to understand the difference between legal requirements and ethical considerations.
F6:
While a lack of public recusal by a Supervisor on an issue pending before the Board may be legal in the strict sense of law, it may give the public the perception of unethical behavior.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Seek additional training and information to understand the difference between legal requirements and ethical considerations.
R4:
Increase personal awareness of the need for public transparency between the Supervisors and parties with business before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors.
F7:
The Order and Decorum lacks sufficient guidance to Supervisors in assisting them in their personal decision making on questions of recusal.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Develop and implement guidelines to assist the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in its decisions as to whether recusal is appropriate on a particular issue.
R3:
Augment the Order and Decorum document, particularly in the area of public transparency of relationships between a Supervisor and parties with business before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
A lack of understanding or complete disregard of the legal requirements established by the Ralph M. Brown Act was evident. (Ob1-Ob11, Fa1)
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
Board members and prospective Board members of any legislative body should be thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the Brown Act. (F1)
R7:
Boards should add discussion of this report to an agenda of a future meeting. (F1-F5)
F2:
Insufficient documented policies and procedures exist, at both the Board level and for the organization as a whole, to define roles and responsibilities. (Ob12-Ob23, Ob25, Ob27-Ob29, Ob31, Ob34, Ob36, Ob40, Fa2, Fa3, Fa5-Fa7, Fa11)
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
Board members should carefully develop, document, and implement their roles and responsibilities and those of their Director in writing. (F2)
R7:
Boards should add discussion of this report to an agenda of a future meeting. (F1-F5)
F3:
There is an ignorance or disregard of ethical training and conduct. (Ob33, Ob37, Fa3)
Related Recommendations (2)
R3:
Board members should comply with the tenets learned in the required ethics and conflict-of-interest training. (F3)
R7:
Boards should add discussion of this report to an agenda of a future meeting. (F1-F5)
F4:
The inability to understand financial reports and what they mean for the organization greatly affects a Board’s effectiveness. (Ob24-Ob31, Fa2, Fa4-Fa7, Fa11)
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
Board members should know their financial responsibilities and be familiar with financial statements. (F4)
R7:
Boards should add discussion of this report to an agenda of a future meeting. (F1-F5)
F5:
There is a general lack of training on how to be an effective Board member. (Ob32-Ob40, Fa8-Fa10)
Related Recommendations (3)
R5:
Board members should seek out education and training so they can provide oversight from a position of understanding instead of relying on their Director. (F5)
R6:
Board members should actively seek out and attend training opportunities. (F5)
R7:
Boards should add discussion of this report to an agenda of a future meeting. (F1-F5)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The Average Daily Cost of housing detainees in Juvenile Hall for Fiscal Year 2014- 2015 averaged $377 per day or $137,481 per year, per detainee.
F2:
Decreasing numbers of local detainees are housed in the facility.
F3:
Regardless of the decreasing number of detainees, overall costs of Juvenile Hall are not commensurably reduced because of the high cost of Title 15 mandated staffing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Probation Department, in collaboration with the Nevada County Superior Court and other stakeholders, should negotiate a contract at the lowest rate possible for all of Nevada County's juvenile detention needs with neighboring county juvenile facilities to reduce Nevada County’s General Fund costs.
F4:
Contracting for Nevada County's juvenile detention needs with a neighboring county juvenile facility is estimated to be approximately 65% less expensive than maintaining a full service juvenile hall in Nevada County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Probation Department, in collaboration with the Nevada County Superior Court and other stakeholders, should negotiate a contract at the lowest rate possible for all of Nevada County's juvenile detention needs with neighboring county juvenile facilities to reduce Nevada County’s General Fund costs.
F5:
Substantial savings for the County General Fund would be achieved by closing Juvenile Hall and contracting with a neighboring county for detention of Nevada County detainees.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By the end of Fiscal Year 2016-2017, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Probation Department, in collaboration with the Nevada County Superior Court and other stakeholders, should negotiate a contract at the lowest rate possible for all of Nevada County's juvenile detention needs with neighboring county juvenile facilities to reduce Nevada County’s General Fund costs.
R2:
Once favorable contracting arrangements with neighboring county juvenile facilities are secured, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors and the Nevada County Probation Department, in collaboration with the Nevada County Superior Court and all other stakeholders, should study and determine the cost effectiveness of alternative uses for the current Carl F. Bryan II Regional Juvenile Hall and repurpose all of the facility for other public programs and services.
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Body Worn Cameras have been shown to improve officer-to-citizen interaction and safety.
F2:
Body Worn Cameras have been shown to reduce citizen complaints.
F3:
Body Worn Cameras provide more clarification of contested incidents between officer and civilian.
F4:
Body Worn Cameras appear to provide some measure of crowd control and mitigation.
F5:
Body Worn Cameras reduce time and legal expense in investigating complaints against officers.
F6:
In Nevada County, the Truckee and Nevada City police departments are presently using Body Worn Cameras.
F7:
The Jury was informed that the Grass Valley Police Department plans to deploy the use of BWCs and has secured funding for this purpose.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office should request funds from the Board of Supervisors for Body Worn Cameras and pursue other funds, grants and the like.
F8:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office has expressed a desire not to deploy Body Worn Cameras at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office should deploy and use Body Worn Cameras.
F9:
Interagency communication concerning Body Worn Camera deployment, techniques, policies, and operating procedures has been shown to improve overall results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Nevada County law enforcement should include the community, policymakers, courts, oversight boards, unions, frontline officers, and other stakeholders in the evolution of their Body Worn Camera programs.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Washington Ridge supplies fire suppression crews in and around Nevada County at significant savings to Nevada County and the State.
F2:
Washington Ridge supplies low cost labor for non-profit organizations and government agencies.
F3:
Washington Ridge teaches life skills along with job training and promotes rehabilitation to reduce recidivism.
F4:
Washington Ridge is well maintained and managed by CAL-FIRE and CDCR.
F5:
An unintended consequence of AB109 implementation is that the number of “low risk” inmates at California State Correctional Facilities has declined and assignment to conservation camps has decreased.
F6:
Full implementation of AB109 could result in closure of approximately 13 conservation camps.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention should continue working with California counties in searching for a plan to keep the conservation camps open.
F7:
CDCR needs to find a source of qualified inmates to staff conservation camps.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should continue working with California counties in searching for a plan to keep the conservation camps fully staffed.
F8:
Conservation camps save the State as much as $100 million a year.
F9:
The recidivism rate from conservation camps is lower than that of general prison and county jail population.
F10:
Washington Ridge saved the County of Nevada and other local agencies $385,478 in 2015.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Local agencies and the County of Nevada should continue working with Washington Ridge Conservation Camp to save money.
F11:
CDCR and CAL-FIRE along with CCPs, working with AB109 funds, could work together to solve the unintended loss of firefighter/inmates caused by AB109.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention, should work together with CCPs to solve the unintended consequence of losing firefighter/inmates as a result of AB109 realignment.