San Joaquin County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

San Joaquin County Property Rooms

Published: July 06, 2017 41 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 20 findings

F1
Post conviction If case was a plea or no contest, the investigating agency can purge property as soon as they receive the Butte County District Attorney’s Evidence Release Memo (hereinafter referred to as Evidence Release Memo). There is no need to hold onto the evidence any longer. If convicted by jury, evidence shall be held for 60 days on misdemeanors and 90 days on felonies for possible appeals. This time is based on the date of the case adjudication and is for those cases in which an Evidence Release Memo is received. In 187 PC and life sentence cases, there will not be an Evidence Release Memo sent until the (s) is deceased or released from prison and is on parole. If the (s) dies while in custody, this information may come to either the DA or the local agency. Once this information is received, it is important that both are made aware of this information. Therefore, always ensure the other party involved has been contacted and is aware of the status. Once the suspect has been released from prison or is deceased, the property can be purged. In order to check on the status of a particular inmate, contact Chico Parole. They will be able to provide you with parole information or a deceased notification on your suspect.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
1 By December 31, 2017, develop, adopt and implement a minimum staffing level to carry out the functions of the property room to ensure the highest standards and integrity.
F2
1 There are no policies or timelines for the training of staff and supervisors assigned to the property room.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
1 By December 31, 2017, develop, adopt and implement a policy and a timeline for training of custodians, technicians and supervisors working or supervising in the property room. 3.0 Evidence/Bar-code Tracking System Prior to 2009, a bar-code software system called Evidence Tracker was used by the Sheriff’s Department for evidence tracking. It became difficult for staff to communicate with the vendor from Evidence Tracker on issues concerning the system. The supervisor in Investigations or the IT Department could only initiate contact. Upon the vendor’s death, support of Evidence Tracker ceased, which prompted the department to look for a new software system. Revolution was selected to replace Evidence Tracker. It contains many different programs, one being the evidence bar-code tracking component. In 2009, prior to installation, the property room clerk received approximately four hours of training, which was the contracted amount. Before the system was installed, the Sheriff’s Department was given two options for the implementation of the new labels: Option one - going forward, all new property coming in on the day of installation would be labeled and scanned with the new bar-code. Option two - going backward, all property currently in the property room would be relabeled and scanned with the new bar-code. Administration chose option two and several employees began the relabeling process. The migration process resulted in some minor glitches. Due to an old server and weak wireless connection in the property warehouse, the vendor developed a software enhancement to assist with the relabeling of property room items and to alleviate the issues. The vendor visited and observed the progress of relabeling and claims to have seen “excess” labels thrown away in a 55-gallon drum. The vendor allegedly reported the observation to the evidence custodian but did not feel it was his responsibility to speak with the supervisor. The vendor based the 10,000 “missing” and “hidden” pieces of evidence by the estimated number of disposed labels. The Grand Jury could not confirm or deny the existence of excess disposed labels. 4.0 Audits, Inventories and Inspections The Sheriff’s Department Policy and Procedures 804.8 - Inspection of the Evidence Room states: “(a) On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policies and procedures.” This practice was not followed and was the responsibility of the Evidence Technician III. “(b) Unannounced inspections of evidence storage areas shall be conducted annually as directed by the Sheriff.” This practice was done in combination with the annual audits. “(c) An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Division Captain (as appointed by the Sheriff) not routinely or directly connected with evidence control.” Audits were completed in February 2013, August 2015 and October 2016. The 2014 annual audit, was delayed because the Investigations Division was in the process of conducting a full inventory. The inventory and audit were not completed because:  Conducting a full inventory was labor-intensive;  Deputies assigned were not trained in the property room procedure creating a learning curve;  Wi-Fi was inadequate in the building;  Items uploaded and downloaded slowly;  Scanners were slow and had limited storage;  Sole custodian had day-to-day operations to maintain; and  Detectives and other staff were occupied with their own caseloads and staffing shortages. Similar observations and recommendations were made following the 2013, 2015 and 2016 audits.  Property was overflowing in the property room;  The property room is running out of space;  Found property and safekeeping property from inmates had to be stored on the floor;  The found and safekeeping property is not being disposed of in a timely manner;  Backlog of guns for Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS) testing;  Recommended hiring extra staff to review cases for disposition;  Recommended assigning additional staff to assist with the backlog of guns to be IBIS tested; and  Recommended hiring additional staff in the property room. As part of the 2016 audit, a list of items was randomly chosen for inspection from different areas in the property room. Custodians printed a list of property by case number, shelf, box and door designation and the safe. A search was conducted for the items listed, all were located. During the search, additional property was located that was not on the list generated by the custodian. A search for these items was completed using the bar-code affixed to the evidence package. Some items were found to be stored in the wrong location and the rest were located on a computer-generated list. This list was placed in a folder which was created and arbitrarily marked “missing” by an evidence custodian. All property was located, accounted for and packaged according to the department’s policies and procedure. The Grand Jury requested a status report on five random items from the “missing” list. All items were accounted for and listed below: 1. Case rejected by the District Attorney, property released back to the jail; 2. Property released to owner; 3. Court order - property destroyed except firearm for IBIS testing; 4. Firearm released to owner, remaining property destroyed; and 5. Court order for property destruction. Command staff was aware of the issues outlined in the audit reports but were slow to address them. The Sheriff’s Department is in the process of doing a full inventory. It is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. A retired deputy was hired to oversee the inventory. The Sheriff’s Department acquired an extra warehouse bay next to the existing property room. All evidence collected from Jan. 1, 2017, forward is being processed and stored in the warehouse until the inventory is done. As of this writing, 60 percent of the inventory is complete and the Grand Jury cannot substantiate the complainant’s allegations of missing evidence. 45
F3
Case not filed The District Attorney’s office shall send an Evidence Release Memo for cases that are either declined due to lack of sufficient evidence, or declined in the interest of justice. These Evidence Release Memos shall state the reason of the case being declined. Once an Evidence Release Memo has been received, the property section will check with their case agent prior to disposal of property. The District Attorney will not move forward with the case unless the case agent has further information. For any cases without an arrest, all property can be purged at statute of limitations. For further information regarding statute of limitations, see Attachment 1. 69
No recommendations for this finding
F4
1 The Grand Jury cannot substantiate evidence missing from the property room or hidden in the software system at this time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 By December 31, 2017, complete a full inventory of the property room and provide a report to the Grand Jury. 5.0 Purging and Disposition of Property Maintaining the chain of custody of all evidence in the Sheriff’s possession is imperative, as its integrity may come under scrutiny in the courtroom. The retrieval, booking, packaging, storing and disposition of property must be well regulated and is a tedious process. The Sheriff’s Department has approximately 175,000 items, including property held for safekeeping and found property. Last year alone 22,576 items were booked, averaging 1,881 items a month. The space in the Sheriff’s property room is overflowing with found property and property held for safekeeping. There is a backlog of firearms needing IBIS testing and review for return to owner or destruction. The purging and disposition of property is not done in a timely and efficient manner, causing an overwhelming inventory of items. It is difficult for the evidence custodians to manage and maintain a neat facility. Due to overcrowded conditions, evidence has been placed on the floor, on top of a vault and stacked on top of one another. This has been a constant complaint and frustration of the evidence custodians. A recommendation was made in the 2013 audit, to have a notification system from the District Attorney’s Office directly to investigations when cases are adjudicated. This would start the process of disposition. Currently, the disposition of property is in the hands of sworn officers who have been assigned to review the cases. The recommended notification system would benefit all agencies countywide. Agencies find it very difficult to navigate through FCE for information. The previous case management system, CJIS, provided greater access to the information needed. Delays have been reported by agencies waiting for disposition authorization from the District Attorney’s Office for evidence held in their property/evidence rooms. The District Attorney in several counties have established Property Retention Policy Agreements with law enforcement agencies within their counties. See attached Appendix I, Butte County Property Retention Policy. 46
F5
Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) cases
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1 By December 31, 2017, assign sworn staff to actively and consistently review cases for disposition.
F6
1 The Sheriff’s Department property room does not have a first-aid kit and up-to-date safety manuals and policies and procedures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
1.1 By December 31, 2017, provide the property room with a first-aid kit.
F7
Juvenile cases The District Attorney’s office will send and Evidence Release Memo on Juvenile cases based on case adjudication. Property may be purged upon receiving these releases. If an Evidence Release Memo is not received, each agency may look up the case status in HOD. Once the case shows closed in HOD, the investigating agency may purge the property. For cases without a suspect, property may be purged based on statute of limitations
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Juvenile cases The District Attorney’s office will send and Evidence Release Memo on Juvenile cases based on case adjudication. Property may be purged upon receiving these releases. If an Evidence Release Memo is not received, each agency may look up the case status in HOD. Once the case shows closed in HOD, the investigating agency may purge the property. For cases without a suspect, property may be purged based on statute of limitations
F8
Drug diversion cases
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Bench warrant vs. arrest warrant
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Search warrant All evidence taken as part of a search warrant must have a court order (1536 PC) prior to the return or purging of any property. If the original warrant service included a return (1536 PC) order, the property can be released by an evidence memo issued by the District Attorney upon case adjudication. All property considered to be stolen/recovered will be photographed and released to the rightful owner, refer to Attachment 3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Search warrant All evidence taken as part of a search warrant must have a court order (1536 PC) prior to the return or purging of any property. If the original warrant service included a return (1536 PC) order, the property can be released by an evidence memo issued by the District Attorney upon case adjudication. All property considered to be stolen/recovered will be photographed and released to the rightful owner, refer to Attachment 3.
F1.1
The property room does not currently have the minimum staffing level to ensure that property room functions are carried out with the highest standards and integrity.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
General purge considerations a) Statute of limitations considerations b) Agency may initiate c) Currency
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
General purge considerations a) Statute of limitations considerations b) Agency may initiate c) Currency
F1.2
There was no pattern of consistency in general supervision of the property and evidence room personnel to ensure policies and procedures are being followed.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Photograph and release option 68 Purge criteria Absent a directive by the District Attorney, the following criteria shall apply permitting the purging of property or evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Photograph and release option 68 Purge criteria Absent a directive by the District Attorney, the following criteria shall apply permitting the purging of property or evidence.
F2.1
There are no policies or timelines for the training of staff and supervisors assigned to the property room.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
The Grand Jury cannot substantiate evidence missing from the property room or hidden in the software system at this time.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1
There is an insufficient number of staff to consistently and efficiently review cases to purge items from inventory.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.2
There are delays and difficulties in obtaining disposition and authorization information from the District Attorney’s Office.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.3
Full Court Enterprise has been a barrier to the efficient and effective disposition of evidence in the county.
No recommendations for this finding
F6.1
The Sheriff’s Department property room does not have a first-aid kit and up-to-date safety manuals and policies and procedures.
No recommendations for this finding

Additional Recommendations 3

These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.

Conclusions 12

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

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

San Joaquin County County