📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Nevada County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

Nevada County Sheriff's Office Reason for the Investigation The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury found no recent review*

18 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 11 findings

There are five areas for evidence holding in two different buildings in Nevada City. The Grand Jury noted in the inspection of one evidence holding area in Nevada City, where large items are held, county maintenance employees have uncontrolled access for building maintenance purposes.. There is a secure evidence room with lockers and two steel shipping containers for evidence holding at the Truckee Substation.

The sergeant in charge of all investigations other than narcotics was interviewed. The two investigative sections are separate as both require unique training. There are four full-time investigators and one part-time. Deputies assigned to this section of investigations are rotated to other assignments every four years. Investigative training of deputies is limited due to the cost. A computer is used to access databases for any information concerning a suspect.. III OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES

There are two Sheriff employees in charge of evidence holding in Nevada City and one in Truckee. 1 1 A log is maintained on all evidence when it is first delivered to the evidence holding area. Entries are made whenever items are removed and returned to the holding area. All entries to the log about evidence movement are manual. A computer report is available from the courts when a case is adjudicated; however, this report does not advise the evidence management staff when evidence can be disposed.

Evidence seized by a court warrant requires a court order to return the evidence to the property owner. Other evidence has varying holding periods. Firearms can be held for up to 10 years. Large items may be photographed and then returned. However, the owner can not dispose of the item until all legal action is completed. Illegal drugs are kept in state specified quantities until court actions are completed, then either burned in state licensed incinerators or disposed of by a state authorized chemical laboratory.

A licensed gun dealer is authorized to dispose of legal firearms. Legal weapons seized by the Sheriff may be sold to the dealer and he is authorized to sell the weapons. Illegal weapons seized by the Sheriff are destroyed when the court case is completed.

Budget requests for improved evidence holding facilities have not been made during recent County budget cycles. The Sheriff's Department has developed a plan to improve the inventory system for evidence management.

An in-house audit of evidence was conducted in February 1998 by request from the Sheriff's office. The audit was based on a random selection of cases from the years 1993 through 1997. The audit found different procedures in use at Nevada City and Truckee. The audit did not find that evidence had been lost; however there were five cases with serious discrepancies and 18 with minor discrepancies in the 52 cases selected from evidence held in Nevada City. The audit found one case with a serious discrepancy and two with minor discrepancies in the 19 cases selected from the evidence held in Truckee. "Serious" discrepancies are defined as those cases where items were missing or evidence was in custody after documentation stated it had been released to an insurance company. "Minor" discrepancies are those cases where evidence documentation was not completed to support final disposition. The audit recommended standardized procedures for all county evidence holding areas and the development of formal procedures and forms to record property log notations. The audit found written procedures for evidence management at the Truckee Substation but no written procedures in Nevada City evidence management. The audit recommended a regular interval of re-keying of property rooms and re-coding of the The major type of illegal drug in Nevada County is methamphetamine. Marijuana was a major problem in the 1980s. However, a turning point in control happened about 1986 due to rigorous enforcement and destruction of growing areas. The narcotics investigation staff are required to use county purchased vehicles that are retained up ٠ to five years.

The Sheriff agrees with the finding. At this time, the walk-through metal detector is going into use at the main building entry.

The Sheriff agrees with the finding.

F10

The Sheriff's staff did not agree to the installation of these doors; the doors could not be staffed safely with the available officers. The issue of public safety during inmate transport has not been an issue. The issues that needed to be addressed concerned security of inmates (keeping them free from harm by outsiders or other inmates), and the availability of contraband to inmates while they are being moved through public corridors.

F11

The Sheriff agrees with the finding. Conclusions

Recommendations 9

R1

The Sheriff's Department should develop a plan for a single evidence facility for Nevada City evidence storage.
R2

The Sheriff's Department should purchase and implement a computer-based evidence management system with common procedures to reduce the errors that are currently a part of the manual logging and management of evidence.
R3

Access to evidence holding areas should be controlled, preventing unauthorized access by all persons except those Sheriff's department employees with responsibility for evidence.
R4

Procedures to periodically re-key access doors and re-code alarms to evidence holding areas should be implemented without delay
R5

The County Administrative Officer (CAO) should direct the County General Services Department to __ investigate, with the Sheriff's Department, potential benefits of using leased cars vs purchased cars for narcotics law enforcement.
R6

The CAO should direct the County General Services Department to develop, with the Sheriff's Department, a cooperative process in the design and planning of future changes in the Sheriff's facilities.
R7

The Sheriff's Department should request the CAO to conduct a study to determine an entry pay rate that would attract viable candidates for deputies and correctional officers. _
R8

Partially disagree. A walk-through metal detector was installed at the main courthouse entrance in conjunction with the card lock door alarm and security system upgrade and is now regularly monitored by assigned courthouse security staff.
R11

Disagree. A card lock door alarm and security system was installed on all courthouse security doors after the Grand jury report was published. Recommendations:

Conclusions 11

CL1 Page 4

The evidence holding areas in Nevada City are totally inadequate. A larger organized storage area designed for evidence management would prevent unauthorized access. The current situation places an undue burden on the staff in charge of evidence holding. Property held as evidence, and management of the evidence inventory, lack control. • Movement of the evidence for use in court lacks consistent documentation.
CL2 Page 4

The commander and the evidence technician at Truckee are to be congratulated for their development of evidence management procedures.
CL3 Page 4

Using purchased county cars for long periods in narcotics investigations places investigators at a disadvantage as the cars are identified by the suspects involved in illegal activities.
CL4 Page 4

The low entry pay, when compared to other nearby counties ,has contributed to the problems of recruiting deputies.
CL5 Page 7

The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. Currently the Sheriff, his staff and the Court staff are working on a plan to increase the safety and security of the Courthouse.
CL6 Page 7

The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion.
CL7 Page 8

The Sheriff's Office recognizes the need for clear communication in matters such as these. The Truckee command staff kept the executive staff within the Sheriff's Office well informed of the progress, or lack thereof. In turn, the executive staff of the Sheriff's Office worked diligently with General Services' staff in order to facilitate the work. What obstructions or delays that did occur, we feel were due to į a lack of clear communication between our executive staff and staff of General Services, and steps are now in place to help prevent such a reoccurrence. Clear written agreed upon expectations are to be used for any projects of significance between the Sheriff's Office and General Services. This should reduce the misunderstandings and confusions that delayed the Truckee project. If blame is to be assigned in the Truckee project, it certainly does not lie within the Truckee command staff, but rather within the executive staff of the Sheriff's Office and other county departments.
CL8 Page 8

The Sheriff disagrees with this conclusion. The projects were broken into individual ones due to the varied funding sources. Accounting and payment was easier if projects funded from different sources were completed in total before going on to the next. One project was subject to some limitations on cost but was not broken 3 into several projects. The confusion and unacceptable delays were genuine but not as a result of the facts as stated by the Grand Jury report. The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. 4.
CL9 Page 9

5. The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. The Sheriff's Office, especially the command staff of the Truckee Sheriff's Station, made exceptional attempts to coordinate the efforts. The lack of a system of accountability and an individual assigned to hold the process accountable was responsible for an inefficient effort at coordination.
CL10 Page 9

The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. The Sheriff's Office, especially the command staff of the Truckee Sheriff's Station, made exceptional attempts to coordinate the efforts. The lack of a system of accountability and an individual assigned to hold the process accountable was responsible for an inefficient effort at coordination.
CL11 Page 10

comprised of several separate storage areas, which can place an undue burden on staff in charge of evidence holding. By nature of the locations and size of the 5 storage areas, the maintaining of evidence is staff intensive, and results in a waste of staff time and a decreased level of service to the community. However, it is important to point out that as cumbersome as the system exists, the integrity of the evidence has been maintained. The evidence system is fully functional. There certainly is room for improvement and additional space is needed. However, the evidence system is functioning as it should albeit inadequate. Lastly, in an effort to improve the existing system, the Sheriff's Office has implemented suggested changes relative updating current policies and procedures as they pertain to the handling of evidence, as well as uncontrolled access problems that were identified by the Grand Jury. However, I feel it important to clarify that the Sheriff's Office's evidence technicians do not allow evidence to leave the facility without proper documentation. 2-4 The Sheriff agrees with the conclusions.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Nevada County Sheriff Elected County Office

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.