📋
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.
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F12, F13
Findings 14 findings
F1
The classification decision tree does not consider the charges filed against the inmate. Response to F1: Partial Disagree. The decision tree is used to determine the initial classification and does consider charges filed. However, as the inmate remains in custody for extended periods of time the decision to reclassify mostly considers the inmates behavior patterns and psychological stability.
F2
The one-deputy escort of Abril was based on the classification decision tree, which did not consider the seriousness of the charges or the potential sentence those charges carried. Response to F2: Partially Disagree: The Deputy escort was based on behavioral history while in custody. As a result of AB109, inmates are spending more time in jail and in more restrictive conditions than they would in prison. In response, the Prison Law Office of California filed a class action lawsuit against Santa Clara County, leading to a settlement where the County agreed to reclassify inmates based on their in-custody behavior rather than their original offenses. This settlement has influenced how jails classify inmates, with ongoing reviews focusing on placement, improved conditions, and opportunities for inmates to demonstrate good behavior to remain in less restrictive housing.
F3
transporting an inmate to a location or for observing a hospitalized inmate. Response to F3: Agree: Corrections Policy 1-18 currently addresses this finding. Additionally, as of July 2024 training has been implemented into the Field Training Officer program.
F4
The expense to taxpayers of Placer County was over $109,000. Response to F4: Partially Disagree: Based on the information we had, the estimated cost is approximately $102,000. Without more detailed information on how the Grand Jury arrived at the figure of "over $109,000", we cannot fully agree or disagree with the Grand Jury's assessment.
F5
allowed a violent felon to escape, put the public, fellow law enforcement, medical staff, and patients at risk. Response to F5: Agree: The deputy's complacency and violations of policies and procedures, which allowed a violent felon to escape, put the public, fellow law enforcement, medical staff and patients at risk.
F6
The radius of Everbridge/Placer Alert system notifications did not cover the entire south Placer region. Response to F6: No response Other than F6, which was a statement of fact, the responses and date of responses met compliance requirements of Penal Code 933.05.
F7
Local Congressional offices, the City of Lincoln, and a community awareness group have been encouraging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin remediation of the trichloroethylene contamination. Responses to F7: The City agrees with this finding.
F8
The City of Lincoln has included Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site remediation in their 2023-2025 Strategic Plan. Responses to F8: The City agrees with this finding.
F9
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been aware of trichloroethylene contamination at the Lincoln Titan 1-A Missile Site since 1991 and has assumed responsibility for remediation. Responses to F9: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct.
F10
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is installing additional monitoring wells bordering Snapdragon Lane and Prunella Court in the Sun City Lincoln Hills Community. Responses to F10: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct.
F11
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers abruptly ceased this project for nearly a decade to determine the source of contamination and responsibility for the cleanup from 2009 to 2018-2019. Responses to F11: Without making admissions on behalf of the Army Corps, the City and Mr. Scully believe this statement to be correct. Follow-up to F1 F11 Responses: The City Council and City Manager of Lincoln, Ca, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the Findings within the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report.
F14
There is no covered entry or walkway to protect staff, visitors, detainees, or evidence from inclement weather, and is not compliant with The Americans with Disability Act. Response to F14: Partially agree - There is no covered entry or walkway to inclement weather. protect staff, detainees, or evidence from inclement weather. We do have a covered entry in the front of the building for visitors and the two records clerks who generally use that entrance.
F15
The Placer County Board of Supervisors recently authorized land use consulting, project planning, and entitlements to facilitate the design of the new Tahoe Justice Center. Response to F15: The Board of Supervisors agree with this finding. Sheriff Woo agrees - Facilities has agreed that they are working with a land use consultant to start the EIR and entitlements process for this project in Tahoe. This will be a long and slow process.
F16
Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing, embroidery, crafts, culinary arts, and landscaping. Response to F16: Agree - Training programs that are taught at this facility include sewing, printing, embroidery, crafts, culinary arts and landscaping. Responses to the Findings meet compliance requirements.
Recommendations 9
-
R1By October 1, 2024, the classification decision tree be modified to include additional factors as set forth in the Scott Jones, Esq. report. This should include charges an inmate is facing and the potential sentence range assuming conviction, including sentencing enhancements, and pending out- of-county charges. Response to R1: The recommendation will not be implemented. The Placer County's Sheriff's Office acknowledges the recommendation to create a Guard-Duty matrix that includes factors in accordance with Penal Code section 1192.7(c). As of July 16, 2024, the Corrections Manual contains a policy that includes current charges and prior convictions. However, the Placer County Corrections Division Classification Unit does not have access to the potential sentences an inmate is facing or any sentence enhancements. This function is under the jurisdiction of the Courts. Additionally, the Corrections Unit lacks access to information on pending charges in other jurisdictions, except for known out-of-county warrants.
-
R2staff approval prior to any reclassification of any inmate currently charged with an aggravated felonies pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7(c). Response to R2: The recommendation has been implemented. The Placer County's Correctional Manual Policy 1-18, Guarding inmates, was modified on July 16, 2024, to include a process for downgrading inmates guard with jail commander approval.
-
R3curriculum and commence a formal training program for Placer County deputies for out of custodial facility transportation and monitoring duties, prior to deputy assignment, which includes hands-on, practical training. Response to R3: The recommendation has been implemented. Deputies assigned to Field Operations who have not yet been jail trained will be trained by their Field Trainer on Jail Policy 1-18. The responses and date of responses to the Grand Jury recommendations met compliance requirements of Penal Code section 933.05.
-
R4By September 1, 2024, the Lincoln City Council will appoint a city representative to attend quarterly Restoration Advisory Board meetings. Responses to R4: By September 1, 2024, the City Council will appoint the City Manager or designee as the representative to attend meetings of the Restoration Advisory Board. The 2024-2025 PC-GJ contacted the Lincoln City Manager on October 9, 2024 and confirmed implementation. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: The City Council and City Manager of Lincoln, Ca, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report recommendations.
-
R5By November 1, 2024, the Placer County Planning Services Division will develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties. Response to R5: Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommendation. It makes sense for Planning Services, which primarily interacts with the MACs, to set standards that the MACs would follow. District 2 No additional submittal. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it would be best to discuss this as a hearing body as it may need to be pushed further out to give staff adequate time to update. A realistic date would be further out to early-mid 2025. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is required to determine the necessity and/or feasibility of such an undertaking. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that it should be implemented in the given timeframe. Follow up to the responses to R5: As of December 31, 2024, the BOS have not included any action item in the bi-monthly Board meetings to address the recommendations to address having the Planning Services Division develop written procedures to inform Placer County Supervisors, Municipal Advisory Councils, and county staff how information is transmitted among these parties.
-
R6Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will authorize mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the Municipal Advisory Councils. Beginning in February 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure mandatory annual training on the Brown Act and new rezoning laws and procedures relevant to the Municipal Advisory Councils board members occurs. Response to R6: Recommendation No. 6 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be
-
R7By September 1, 2024, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will ensure all current and past meeting agendas and approved minutes are posted to the Municipal Advisory Council webpages. Response to R7: Recommendation No. 7 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I favor this recommenda period. District 2 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is it is important to have meeting agendas and minutes available and updated regularly. District 3 - Speaking as an individual Supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that although a good idea, we are short-staffed, and this is not a realistic timeline to get this completed. Late 2024 to early 2025 would be a more realistic timeline. District 4 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that further analysis is needed to determine the necessity for this step. District 5 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that this has already been handled by county staff.
-
R8By January 1, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors will provide virtual access for all Municipal Advisory Councils meetings to the public. Response to R8: Recommendation No. 8 requires further analysis. District 1- The Grand Jury (GJ) has requested that I, an individual Supervisor, respond. However, the GJ's recommendations is directed to the "Placer County Board of Supervisors", as a legislative body, to take specific actions. As an individual supervisor, I cannot bind or commit the Board to act (repeated in every Board of Supervisor response and will be omitted for Districts 2-5). Speaking as an individual Supervisor, I believe this recommendation is unreasonable. MACs are primarily in rural areas with unreliable internet, making it difficult to hold compliant public meetings. For instance, if a MAC meeting loses power or internet, it must be adjourned and rescheduled, which is highly inefficient. While recording and posting meetings online is a viable alternative, it would demand substantial county resources. District 2 -Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is virtual meetings are costly to host and virtual access is limited in much of the rural parts of the County where the Municipal Advisory Councils exist. During Covid, we provided virtual access, and did not see as increase in attendance. I believe the public is more likely to attend when an issue that impacts them directly is on the agenda, and providing virtual access will be a large expense to taxpayers, without a lot of benefit. District 3 - Speaking as an individual supervisor, my opinion of this recommendation is that t believe it will be effective in drawing in additional citizens to this meeting. Follow-up to R1 R8 Responses: The Placer County Board of Supervisors have met Compliance requirements per Penal Code § 933.05 for their responses to the
-
R29R4. transportation methods for moving detainees from Burton Creek to the Auburn Main Jail. Responses to R4: Sheriff Woo stated that Recommendation No. 3 requires further analysis. The cost of funding full-time transport deputies would exponentially outweigh the cost of the contract between Placer and Nevada County. Placer County is responsible for providing allied agencies such as CHP, CA State Parks and Probation with a booking facility for arrests made within Placer County. The contract with Nevada County Jail ensures that officers making arrests in the eastern part of the county do not need to drive to the western end for booking. This arrangement not only saves time and resources but also allows officers to remain in their respective areas, maintaining a higher level of public safety and efficiency. By preventing long travel times for bookings, the contract helps keep law enforcement presence consistent across the country, avoiding the potential gaps in coverage that could arise if deputies were required to transport arrestees across significant distances. Follow-up to R1 R4 Responses: Supervisors, have met Compliance requirements for their responses to the Recommendations within the 2023-2024 Grand Jury report.