Response Procedure to Grand Jury Reports The governance of responses to Grand Jury Final Report is contained in Penal

Post conviction 2. Post dismissal 3. Case not filed 4. DNA/Biological evidence 5. Sexually Violent Predators (SVP cases) 6. Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse 7. Juvenile cases 8. Drug diversion cases 9. Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant 10. Search warrant 11. General purge considerations A) Statute of limitations considerations B) Agency may initiate C) Currency 12. Photograph and release option The Department of Justice publishes an Arrest and Disposition Reporting Manual to assist in determining when a case is “final.” District Attorney’s Response to: “I’LL BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU PRETTY SOON” Recommendation number 3 states that: “Mendocino County District Attorney notify the main evidence depository in Ukiah when a case reaches final disposition.” This recommendation requires further analysis. The District Attorney’s Office already has a policy and form to be given to the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, as well as other law enforcement agencies to advise when the appeal time for a case has run (Section VII Evidence D). The proper disposition of evidence is extremely complicated, and the District Attorney’s Office, along with the Sheriff’s Office, lack sufficient personnel and an adequate case management system to handle the task. In practice, the Sheriff’s Office has presented a list of cases for which they would like to destroy the evidence. Our staff, in turn, must manually pull each case and request an attorney to review the case to determine whether the evidence can legally be released. Ultimately, it is the Sheriff’s Office’s responsibility to dispose of the property in the manner prescribed by law. The “Comments” section of the report places the burden on the District Attorney’s Office to notify the Sheriff’s Office of case disposition, with the desired result of reducing the time required for investigation by the evidence clerks. The availability of computers to both departments does not solve the time consuming process of evidence disposition. At this time, the Sheriff’s Office evidence clerks can access the District Attorney’s computers to determine a case’s status. Consequently, the recommendation serves to transfer part of the time consuming task from a larger organization to a smaller organization. Until such time that the county purchases a new case management system for both departments as well as budgets for additional personnel in both departments, any policy regarding destruction of evidence will fail. This important issue has been a topic of discussion at the Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force Executive Board meetings. On June 12, 2008, Ben Stough, Court Executive Officer, joined us to explore the issue, as the courts are an essential party to the proper retention of evidence. Again, the Sheriff’s Office can technically access the court’s computers to determine a case’s status. Because of the antiquated JALAN system currently in use, this is a time consuming, technically challenging process for many of the clerks. We will continue to work together to create a policy, which will streamline the process for all involved. In our efforts to find a better, more efficient method, we obtained a copy of the Butte County Law Enforcement Property Retention Policy, which is signed by the District Attorney, Sheriff, and other law enforcement agencies. We will continue to work to create a policy of our own. We should be able to complete this part of the project within six months, as requested by the Grand Jury. Full implementation of the policy will not be effective until such time as a new case management system is in place for the District Attorney, Sheriff’s Office, Probation Department, and the courts. (Note, Butte County has the Damien case management system, one which the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office has reviewed, but has no budget to purchase.) Additional personnel will need to be hired as well. During these difficult fiscal times of budget reductions, I have no way of predicting when this area of concern will improve. The District Attorney’s office is involved in only a portion of the cases that need answers regarding evidence retention and destruction. For example, many investigations have no suspect; thus no case is filed with the court and no file with the District Attorney exists. Some cases are rejected for prosecution. Again, no case is opened in the District Attorney’s Office and no case is filed with the court, but the evidence must still be retained for the appropriate time. Some evidence requires a court order to be destroyed (weapons, drugs, evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant). To help the Grand Jury understand the complexity of the issue, I am including the evidence retention considerations listed in the Butte County Policy: 13. Post conviction 14. Post dismissal 15. Case not filed 16. DNA/Biological evidence 17. Sexually Violent Predators (SVP cases) 18. Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse 19. Juvenile case 20. Drug diversion cases 21. Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant 22. Search warrant 23. General purge considerations A) Statute of limitations considerations B) Agency may initiate C) Currency 24. Photograph and release option The attachment for the statute of limitations consideration is 31 pages long. In conclusion, the District Attorney will work diligently with the Sheriff to streamline the process of evidence retention/destruction: said efforts to include notification of cases that have legally concluded. Efforts for both departments will continue to be problematic until a new case management system is put in place and additional personnel hired.