📋
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.
Findings 10 findings
F1
Page 113
Personnel assigned to the propert y/evidence facility estimate that approximately 75 percent of the property and evidence currently stored there could be process ed and rem oved because the cases involved have been fully adjudicated.
F2
Page 113
Sheriff’s office personnel told the Grand Jury that with current staffing it would take about 20 years to process and remove the items no longer required to be stored.
F3
Page 113
Property and evidence are stored throughout the property/evidence facility in closets, hallway s and rooms not designed for such purposes, and most areas are filled to capacity.
F4
Page 113
Personnel assigned to the proper ty/evidence f acility use t wo separate incom patible softwar e programs to inventory and manage the property and evidence. One software program was in use prior to 2003, and a different software program was put into use at that time. The use and maintenance of these two separate inventor y control software program s has exacerbated the co mplexity of the inventor y process. Currently an eff ort is underway to obtai n or write a new software program to improve efficiency by facilitating an interface between the two existing programs.
F5
Page 113
The Shasta Count y District Attorney’s office is working with t he Shasta County Superior Court to establish a method for flagging cases when property and evidence can be returned or disposed of at the final adjudication of a case. However, this effort will only assist with recently filed criminal cases and will not reduce the number of stored items which relate to older cases.
F6
Page 113
Cash being held as evidence or for safekeeping is kept in a safe in th e property/evidence facility. Currently, five employees of the sheriff’s office have access to the safe’s combination.
F7
Page 113
For audits the sheriff’s office personnel assigned to the property/evidence facility utilize the “Law Enforcement Property & Evidence Sy stem Audit Guide (2005),” published b y State of California Department of Justice. This guide reco mmends that annual audits be con ducted by a supervisor. According to the guide, t hese audits, at a m inimum, should review cases involving drugs, money and guns. Cal-MMET performs audits with respect to its own case-specific property and evidence.
F8
Page 113
During a tour of the property/evidence facility, the Grand Jury found that there was no place reserved for storing bio -hazardous materials. After the Grand Jury’s vis it, a place for storing bio-hazardous materials was designated, and written procedures, “Bio-Hazard Protocol,” were adopted.
F9
Page 113
There is little or no initial or follow-up training provided by the sheriff’s office for personnel assigned to the property/evidence facility. Formal and annual training on the various software programs for inventory control is limited.
F10
Page 113
Property and evidence, except for guns, are destroyed periodically at a local cement company where they are put into an incinerator which burns at 2,500 degrees. Guns are either sold at auction or taken to an incinerator near Oakland where they are melted. 113
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 112A com prehensive annual audit should be performed by sheriff’s office personnel not assigned to the property/evidence facility. In addition, quarterly self-audits of guns, drugs and cash by property/evidence fac ility personnel should be conduc ted and then reviewed and approved by the sheriff or undersheriff.
-
R2Page 112All sheriff’s office property/evidence facili ty personnel should rece ive initial and ongoing training on property and evidence handling, including the training available from C.A.P.E.
-
R3Page 112All sheriff’s office property/evidence facili ty personnel should rece ive initial and ongoing training on the software programs used to inventory and manage stored items.
-
R4Page 112The sheriff’s office should deve lop a plan for disposing of pr operty and evidence that does not need to be stored any longer in the property/evidence facility. Personnel currently assigned to the prope rty/evidence facility and to the co-l ocated sheriff’s office crime lab, as well as employees on light duty, volunteers and retired sh eriff’s office personnel could carry out the plan.
-
R5Page 112The Shasta County District Attorney’s office, working with the Shasta Count y Superior Court, should expedite the establishment of a method to flag adjudicated cases to initiate return or disposal of associated property and evidence.