C. David Eyster Courthouse District Attorney P.o. Box 1000 Ukiah, CA 95482 Paul D. Sequeira Assistant District Attorney

Animal Control does not have adequate policy and procedures to meet the best practices criteria for handling large animal abuse or neglect cases. District Attorney’s Response: The District Attorney has inadequate information to agree with or deny this finding. Animal Control is not a unit of the District Attorney’s Office. Animal Control personnel do not work for and are not under the supervision of the District Attorney or any member of his staff. The District Attorney has never been tasked – by statute or otherwise – with developing policy and procedures for Animal Control personnel. In the case of Animal Control, it is asserted that development of policy and procedures for Animal Control personnel currently lies with the Sheriff or his assignees.

There are no mutually agreed upon written procedures that cover responsibilities, contacts, logistics, and other items for large animal integrated operations involving the community and multiple agencies of the County. District Attorney’s Response: The District Attorney has inadequate information to agree with or deny this finding. Animal Control is not a unit of the District Attorney’s Office. Animal Control’s personnel do not work for and are not under the supervision the District Attorney or his staff. The District Attorney has never been tasked – by statute or otherwise – with developing policy and procedures for Animal Control personnel. Law or code enforcement agencies, including Animal Control, may submit completed investigatory and other reports to the District Attorney and, based on the content of such reports and available evidence, the District Attorney is tasked the responsibility of making charging decisions within the confines of applicable law.

Veterinarians and Animal Control Officers are concerned about the District Attorney’s lack of prosecution of animal abuse or neglect cases. District Attorney’s Response: The District Attorney disagrees with this finding because there is no information provided to agree with. First, that unnamed people may have concerns that are based on a false premise is a poor starting point for any rational discussion. It is also a poor ending point for what purports to be a thorough investigation. District Attorney’s Response County Delivery of Animal Control Services August 28, 2014 Second, surprisingly, the Grand Jury failed to take follow-up testimony or even make inquiry of the District Attorney and his staff regarding what these unnamed people may have told the Grand Jury. It would have been easy for the Grand Jury to ask for and obtain data that would confirm or blow away claimed concerns regarding the extent of prosecution of animal abuse or neglect cases. Third, the District Attorney has not been in receipt of any communications – letter, telephone, email, tweets, or personal contact -- expressing concerns by any state-licensed veterinarian who has been involved in the investigation of animal abuse or neglect cases in Mendocino County. I have an “open door” policy and a concerned veterinarian knowledgeable about the facts of a particular case would be welcome to discuss the specifics of a case with me. That has not happened. Fourth, the District Attorney likewise is not in receipt of any communications -- letter, telephone, email, tweets, or personal contact -- expressing concerns of an Animal Control officer regarding the prosecution of Animal Control cases. Like all law enforcement officers, Animal Control officers have the ability to personally deliver their completed investigatory reports to the District Attorney. They may then explain their investigation to the District Attorney so as to emphasize the strengths of the evidence in a particular case, and the need, if any, for special handling. To the best of my knowledge, this personal presentation option has not been utilized by any Animal Control officer, though it is a commonly used by other law enforcement agencies, including other Sheriff personnel. Fifth, Animal Control officers work for Sheriff Tom Allman. Sheriff Allman has never expressed any concern regarding the District Attorney’s review process and prosecution standards for animal abuse or neglect cases. Animal abuse or neglect cases are evaluated for criminal charging in the same manner as all other criminal submissions. Charging decisions are based on consistently-applied standards, state-wide evidentiary rules, case precedent, and the weight and credibility of available proof, not on the subjective concerns or outcry of unnamed individuals. Ultimately, the Grand Jury should have taken steps to determine whether the witnesses they heard from accurately knew that of which they spoke. Have local Animal Control officers been submitting reams of reports to the District Attorney’s Office only to have those cases rejected after the District Attorney’s charging review? Let’s take a look …. In calendar year 2011, Animal Control submitted only one (1) report for charging consideration by the DA. That single report was declined for prosecution by the Deputy District Attorney who reviewed it, noting that the rejection was in the interests of justice. Animal Control personnel did not seek further review of this declination by the District Attorney or his management-level attorneys, as is allowed. In calendar year 2012, Animal Control submitted no reports for charging consideration by the DA. District Attorney’s Response County Delivery of Animal Control Services August 28, 2014 In calendar year 2013, Animal Control submitted four (4) reports for charging consideration by the DA. Two reports were declined for prosecution based on the insufficiency of the evidence developed by Animal Control in the course of its investigation. The third report was combined with a separate Sheriff’s Office report and approved for combined charging in a single accusatory pleading. The charged defendant was ultimately convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect and is currently on court probation. The fourth report was approved for filing and the District Attorney has already obtained a felony conviction against that defendant for his misconduct. During the first six months of 2014, Animal Control has submitted one report. That report was approved for charging. In summary, Animal Control has submitted only six (6) reports in the last 42 months to the DA. Three reports were accepted for prosecution. Three reports were declined for prosecution – two of those three were returned for lack of evidence having been developed during Animal Control’s investigation so that any crime could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury with admissible evidence.

The District Attorney’s reluctance to prosecute animal abuse cases, for whatever reason, has led to abusive owners keeping the abused animals longer. District Attorney’s Response: The Grand Jury’s “finding” or cursory conclusion that the District Attorney is reluctant to prosecute animal abuse cases, again, not supported by fact. Worse, beyond mixing apples and oranges, this statement is just plain wrong. It bears repeating that the Grand Jurors responsible for this report did not ask to speak with the District Attorney or his staff prior to making this false finding. The Grand Jury did not review records – or even ask to review records – maintained by the District Attorney’s Office relating to animal abuse or neglect submissions and filings, records that factually demonstrate no reluctance on the part of the District Attorney to prosecute such cases. Had the Grand Jury exercised due diligence and actually reviewed available public and in-house records, it would have discovered that the District Attorney has indeed been diligent in the prosecution of animal abuse or neglect cases, and has been winning convictions on these cases since taking office in January 2011. The Grand Jury would have also learned that Animal Control is not the only law enforcement “game” in town. Other law enforcement agencies – perhaps more experienced in investigations, evidence collection, and report writing – have had their animal abuse or neglect cases reviewed, approved, and prosecuted. Examples of actual animal cases that the Grand Jury should have reviewed to determine whether the District Attorney’s Office has actually been prosecuting animal abuse or neglect cases with no hint of reluctance are the following: District Attorney’s Response County Delivery of Animal Control Services August 28, 2014 Defendant Culpepper (14-76063) was sentenced to two years probation July 28, 2014, having pled no contest to misdemeanor animal abuse on June 2, 2014. The defendant was ordered to serve 180 days in the county jail as a condition of a two year term of probation (Submitted to the DA by Animal Control) Defendant Gitchel (13-74286) was prosecuted and he is participating in rehabilitative Drug Court, as authorized by law, having pled no contest to felony animal abuse on November 5, 2013. (Submitted to the DA by Fish and Wildlife) Defendant Phillips (13-75117) was convicted of misdemeanor maintaining a public nuisance relating to animals. She is now on 36 months probation, as of June 17, 2014, with court-ordered limitations on the number of animals she may possess and other terms and conditions. (Submitted to the DA by the Sheriff’s Office and Animal Control) Defendant Lane (13-72623) was prosecuted and sentenced to state prison for felony animal abuse, having been convicted of that charge by jury. (Submitted to the DA by the Fort Bragg Police Department) Defendant O’Brien (12-70506) was prosecuted and he is currently on supervised probation for felony animal abuse. (Submitted to the DA by the Sheriff’s Office) Defendant Keiley (12-23121) was taken before a jury on misdemeanor animal abuse charges. He was found not guilty by that jury of his peers. (Submitted to the DA by the Fort Bragg Police Department) Defendant Aceves (12-22933) was prosecuted and he is currently on supervised probation for misdemeanor animal abuse. (Submitted to the DA by the Willits Police Department) Defendant Clemons (12-22404) was prosecuted but the magistrate refused to hold him to answer on the felony animal abuse charge. The court dismissed the case. (Submitted to the DA by the Fort Bragg Police Department) Defendant Shamhart (12-2144) was prosecuted and convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect. (Submitted to the DA by Animal Control) Defendant Lawrence (10-12531) was convicted by the prior administration of felony animal abuse and placed on supervised probation. The current District Attorney caused that supervised probation to be permanently revoked in 2011 and successfully argued for Lawrence to be sent to state prison in 2011 for violating probation. (Submitted to the DA by the Sheriff’s Office) District Attorney’s Response County Delivery of Animal Control Services August 28, 2014

Lack of prosecution leads to Animal Control putting more emphasis on working with abusive owners longer in an attempt to alter owner behavior before proceedings with removal of the animals. District Attorney’s Response: Again, the “lack of prosecution” finding by the Grand Jury necessarily assumes there has been an actual lack of prosecution, an assumption that is not borne out by the facts. It would have been preferable for the Grand Jury to review the prosecution record of the District Attorney prior to publishing such a bald-faced statement. Further, the District Attorney does not agree with the overall premise that the District Attorney is somehow forcing Animal Control to do things it does not otherwise want to do. Animal Control has never discussed strategy with the District Attorney as to what reactive steps it should take in a particular case. Those day-to-day policies and strategies for addressing animal problems in Mendocino County are left to the officers and supervisors of Animal Control, and do not involve the District Attorney unless and until a crime investigation is completed and the reports relating to that investigation are submitted to the District Attorney for charging consideration. While the District Attorney has his own in-house investigators, Animal Control has never sought assistance from these more experienced investigators. Accordingly, the District Attorney does not agree with this finding because it has no basis in fact. Grand Jury Recommendations: