El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-2014 Sheriff's Vehicle Abatement Program is Necessary, but Needs New Rules

Identification of a vehicle as a public nuisance. A vehicle may be identified as a public nuisance because it is wrecked, dismantled, inoperative or abandoned on public or private property. Identification may result either from a complaint received from the public or from an officer’s observation. Both the Vehicle Code and the County Ordinance authorize the Officer to enter onto private property to examine the vehicle. The Officer is permitted, but not required, to obtain a search warrant.

Notice to the last registered owner of the vehicle and the owner of the property on which the vehicle is found. The notice shall be sent 10 days prior to any action to remove the vehicle, shall be sent by registered or certified mail and shall notify the owners of their hearing rights.

If no hearing is requested or the hearing officer rules against the owner of the vehicle or property, the vehicle is removed, title is transferred, and administrative costs assessed against the owner.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles is notified by the Sheriff’s Office of the vehicle’s non-operation. The same Sheriff's Department Vehicle Abatement Officer has been the primary administrator and enforcement officer for ten years. County ordinance § 10.16.050 provides that the amount to be assessed as administrative hearing costs shall be the amount established in Title 9 of the Ordinance Code or by action of the Board of Supervisors. The cost of removal shall be established by resolution of the Board of Supervisors. Instead, the Sheriff’s Office has determined that the costs of the hearing shall be $100. During two years ending June 30, 2013, 580 vehicles were given notice as public nuisances. Of these, 529 vehicles were disposed of under the Vehicle Abatement Program. Actions • The Grand Jury interviewed the Sheriff personnel assigned to the Vehicle Abatement Program and reviewed statistics prepared by the Sheriff about the program. • The Grand Jury reviewed several warrants used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer to enter private property to serve notice or remove vehicles. Sheriff personnel told the Grand Jury that warrants are rarely used. The Grand Jury noted there was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the description of the property to be searched and a description of the extent of that search. • The Grand Jury interviewed 3 citizens who had vehicles towed under this program between 2005 and 2011. • The Grand Jury reviewed the applicable California state Vehicle Code sections, El Dorado County ordinance chapters, and legal documents. Findings The Grand Jury supports the declared purpose of the Vehicle Abatement Program and finds: 1. None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury. Response: The Sheriff agrees with the finding.

Property owners felt law enforcement and county personnel treated them unfairly by giving notice that their vehicles were public nuisances. Response: The Sheriff disagrees wholly with the finding. As the Grand Jury noted in their report, they interviewed three citizens who had their vehicles towed under this program between 2005 and 2011. During a two year period ending June 30, 2013, the Sheriff’s Office issued 580 vehicle abatement public nuisance notices. I do not dismiss the beliefs of the three citizens interviewed, but even accepting the belief of these three individuals, the statistical sampling is far too small to justify a conclusion that “property owners,” which implies all or a large percentage of property owners, felt they were treated unfairly. Additionally, the individuals interviewed were involved in specific instances which occurred more than three years ago. Finally, there are no facts stated from which one could determine the basis of or merit of the complaints made by three individuals.

Those individuals who did not voluntarily take care of their vehicles by moving or removing them generally did not request a hearing within the 10 day time period allowed and no hearing was held. Response: The Sheriff agrees with the finding.

Ten days to request a hearing is insufficient in a rural county where many people receive their mail at a Post Office Box. Response: The Sheriff agrees with the finding. The ten (10) day response period is a standard period set forth in the County Ordinance for code enforcement administrative hearings: El Dorado County Ordinance 9.02.380 and 10.16.060. This time limit is consistent with the California Vehicle Code section 22661(e).

The $100 hearing fee charged by the Sheriff’s Office is not authorized by law and may be so large as to inhibit the property owner’s ability or desire to request a hearing. Response: The Sheriff disagrees partially with the finding. The El Dorado County Ordinance 10.16.040 B states the amount to be assessed as administrative hearing costs shall be the amount established in Title 9 or by action of the Board of Supervisors. El Dorado County Ordinance 9.02.380 states in part, “No hearing to contest an administrative citation shall be held unless and until a request for hearing form provided by the county has been completed and submitted with a hearing fee and the administrative fine. The refundable hearing fee shall be two hundred dollars ($200.00) payable to El Dorado County to defray the cost of the hearing and may be changed by resolution of the board of supervisors…” The Sheriff’s Office is adhering to the procedures set forth in Title 9 and Title 10 of the County Ordinance.

Having one individual act as the Vehicle Abatement Officer for ten years has contributed to suspicions surrounding the program. Changing Vehicle Abatement personnel more frequently would improve warrant preparation and relations with property owners. Response: The Sheriff partially agrees with the finding. The finding assumes there are “suspicions surrounding the program.” As the Grand Jury found there was no merit to the allegations that the vehicle abatement program was used to take specific vehicles for reasons of profit and personal collection. Other than speaking to three individuals, the Grand Jury did not identify any widespread suspicions surrounding the program. This finding also assumes that the warrant preparation was inadequate, and earlier finding with which the Sheriff disagrees. However, the Sheriff does not take issue with the suggestion that more frequent rotation of the Vehicle Abatement Officer may be advisable.