Nevada County Grand Jury
• 1998-1999
Nevada County Sheriff's Substation at Truckee Reason for the Investigation*
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 11 findings
F1
The Truckee Substation was built as a multi-use government building in 1964. At that time this building was used not only as the jail, but was also used as the courtroom, District Attorney's Office, Probation Department and Sheriff's office. Since 1992 the building has been used solely for the Sheriff's Department and since incorporation of the City also serves as the Police Department for Truckee under contract with the Sheriff's Department for police services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS direct the County Administrative Officer to develop a work plan document that must be used for all requests for maintenance and remodels that exceed monetary amounts determined by the county.
F2
The Grand Jury found the substation to be in noncompliance with BOC guidelines relating to female detainees dating back to 1991.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends that all facility changes using the document defined above, must have detailed formal plans and a specific timeline for completion. The originating department must state a priority for the proposed task and a status-reporting schedule for management. This priority requires coordination between affected departments before changing the priority level.
F3
The Grand Jury found that some of the critical improvements to the Substation had not been accomplished since the 1997-98 Grand Jury report on the Truckee facility was released. At the time of our investigation, the Truckee Substation Jail was not open full time due to a shortage of jail staff. The jail will not reopen on a full time basis until a minimum staff of six correctional officers is ~ assigned to comply with BOC standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS demand timely accountability from all department managers and directors involved in correcting any potentially hazardous condition that places the County, its employees or its citizens at risk.
F4
On September 23, 1997, a BOC field representative, in a letter to the Assistant Sheriff, made several
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Sheriff agrees with the finding The Sheriff agrees with the finding.
F5
The Grand Jury researched why the needed changes to the Truckee Substation had not been completed. The list below is in chronological order: 9-23-97 letter from BOC field representative to Assistant Sheriff describing required upgrades to the Truckee substation 9-30-97 letter from a construction firm to Sheriff's office with a detail bid on some requested work including new fire doors and new dividing walls 10-9-97 electrical company bid on electrical and surveillance equipment needed for the substation 10-24-97 electrical company bid on dispatch area 10-30-97 safety inspection report by the office of the State Fire Marshall on the Truckee Substation calling for needed repairs to the fire alarm system 11-04-97 work order from an electronic systems company for work on the fire alarm and related • systems 11-18-97 letter from Office of the State Fire Marshall, in a follow up inspection, that the fire alarm system was operational and "fire watch" conditions were no longer necessary 11-19-97 letter from Deputy State Marshall, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to facility captain requesting immediate attention to several issues including electrical, fire alarm system and inoperable exit door 12-11-97 letter from Assistant Sheriff to Facilities Management of Nevada County requesting changes and improvements needed to upgrade the Truckee Substation 3-31-98 construction bid on framing, electrical, sheet rock work, doors, hardware and flooring in dispatch area 4-02-98 second bid on same work 6-19-98 e-mail from Truckee Dispatcher to Commander, Truckee Substation notifying of an
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
to financial considerations. The Sheriff will work with the CAO relative possible implementation, and conduct a study of this recommendation within the next six months, if not sooner. The Sheriff supports this recommendation and will work with the CAO relative
F6
The Grand Jury found on 12-29-98 during their visit to the Truckee Substation that some of the work projects as per BOC requirements dated 9-23-97 were close to completion. The surveillance and security equipment arrived at the Nevada County Purchasing Department on or about January 29,
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
possible implementation. The Sheriff supports this recommendation and will work with the CAO relative
F7
The Sheriff disagrees partially with the finding. The finding stated, "...there were five cases with serious discrepancies and 18 with minor discrepancies in the 52 cases selected from evidence in Nevada City." The evidence technician assigned at the time of the audit submitted a report in response to the audit resolving all but one issue. The audit also recommended standardized procedures for all county evidence holding areas and the development of formal procedures and forms to record property log notations. The audit found written procedures for evidence management at the Truckee Substation but no written procedures in Nevada City evidence management. The Sheriff's Office is currently in the process of updating the written procedures for both facilities. Lastly, the audit recommended a regular interval of re-keying property rooms and re-coding the alarms in each of the holding areas. The audit recommended correction of the situation where county maintenance employees have uncontrolled access to an evidence area. Both of these issues are also in the process of being corrected. Findings - Investigations 1. The Sheriff agrees with the finding. However, as a point of clarification, the Sheriff's Office coordinates a narcotics task force that is comprised of one sergeant, three sheriff's deputies, one secretary, and one Nevada City Police Officer. In addition, as of this date, one California Highway Patrol Officer has been added to the task force. į 2. The Sheriff agrees with the finding. However, as a point of clarification, the investigative unit is comprised of one sergeant, four full-time investigators, one secretary, and one part-time investigator. Other Findings 1-3 The Sheriff agrees with the findings. Conclusions 1. The Sheriff disagrees partially with the conclusion. The current system is comprised of several separate storage areas, which can place an undue burden on staff in charge of evidence holding. By nature of the locations and size of the storage areas, the maintaining of evidence is staff intensive, and results in a waste of staff time and a decreased level of service to the community. However, it is important to point out that as cumbersome as the system exists, the integrity of the evidence has been maintained. The evidence system is fully functional. There certainly is room for improvement and additional space is needed. However, the evidence system is functioning as it should albeit inadequate. Lastly, in an effort to improve the existing system, the Sheriff's Office has implemented suggested changes relative updating current policies and procedures as they pertain to the handling of evidence, as well as uncontrolled access problems that were identified by the Grand Jury. However, I feel it important to clarify that the Sheriff's Office's evidence technicians do not allow evidence to leave the facility without proper documentation. 2-4 The Sheriff agrees with the conclusions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Sheriff disagrees partially with the finding. The finding stated, "...there were five cases with serious discrepancies and 18 with minor discrepancies in the 52 cases selected from evidence in Nevada City." The evidence technician assigned at the time of the audit submitted a report in response to the audit resolving all but one issue. The audit also recommended standardized procedures for all county evidence holding areas and the development of formal procedures and forms to record property log notations. The audit found written procedures for evidence management at the Truckee Substation but no written procedures in Nevada City evidence management. The Sheriff's Office is currently in the process of updating the written procedures for both facilities. Lastly, the audit recommended a regular interval of re-keying property rooms and re-coding the alarms in each of the holding areas. The audit recommended correction of the situation where county maintenance employees have uncontrolled access to an evidence area. Both of these issues are also in the process of being corrected.
F8
The Sheriff agrees with the finding. At this time, the walk-through metal detector is going into use at the main building entry.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Partially disagree. A walk-through metal detector was installed at the main courthouse entrance in conjunction with the card lock door alarm and security system upgrade and is now regularly monitored by assigned courthouse security staff.
F9
The Sheriff agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
The Sheriff's staff did not agree to the installation of these doors; the doors could not be staffed safely with the available officers. The issue of public safety during ı inmate transport has not been an issue. The issues that needed to be addressed concerned security of inmates (keeping them free from harm by outsiders or other inmates), and the availability of contraband to inmates while they are being moved through public corridors.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Sheriff agrees with the finding. Conclusions The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. Currently the Sheriff, his staff and the
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Disagree. A card lock door alarm and security system was installed on all courthouse security doors after the Grand jury report was published. Recommendations:
Conclusions 10
-
CL1The above chronology clearly demonstrates a lack of planning, failure to take ownership of the issue and in general a dismal display of bureaucratic paper shuffling. The Grand Jury finds this totally unacceptable.
-
CL2The Grand Jury concludes that the Sheriff's Department should not be required to research equipment prices. This is improper use of Deputy Sheriff time.
-
CL3The reason why this project was broken into several smaller projects was to keep the amount of any ž one project from exceeding an amount as noted in the BOS minutes of 11-10-98. This led to ٠: confusion and unacceptable work delays. The Grand Jury concludes that it should not have taken more than a year to start the required ____ modifications requested by various agencies that would provide increased safety to county employees and jail inmates.
-
CL4The Grand Jury concludes that the probable cause of this prolonged delay was the failure of the Sheriff's Department and General Services Department to coordinate their efforts with a written work plan.
-
CL5Court staff are working on a plan to increase the safety and security of the Courthouse.
-
CL6The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion.
-
CL7The Sheriff's Office recognizes the need for clear communication in matters such as these. The Truckee command staff kept the executive staff within the Sheriff's Office well informed of the progress, or lack thereof. In turn, the executive staff of the Sheriff's Office worked diligently with General Services' staff in order to facilitate the work. What obstructions or delays that did occur, we feel were due to į a lack of clear communication between our executive staff and staff of General Services, and steps are now in place to help prevent such a reoccurrence. Clear written agreed upon expectations are to be used for any projects of significance between the Sheriff's Office and General Services. This should reduce the misunderstandings and confusions that delayed the Truckee project. If blame is to be assigned in the Truckee project, it certainly does not lie within the Truckee command staff, but rather within the executive staff of the Sheriff's Office and other county departments.
-
CL8The Sheriff disagrees with this conclusion. The projects were broken into individual ones due to the varied funding sources. Accounting and payment was easier if projects funded from different sources were completed in total before going on to the next. One project was subject to some limitations on cost but was not broken into several projects. The confusion and unacceptable delays were genuine but not as a result of the facts as stated by the Grand Jury report.
-
CL9The Sheriff agrees with the conclusion. The Sheriff's Office, especially the command staff of the Truckee Sheriff's Station, made exceptional attempts to coordinate the efforts. The lack of a system of accountability and an individual assigned to hold the process accountable was responsible for an inefficient effort at coordination.
-
CL10The Sheriff disagrees partially with the conclusion. The current system is comprised of several separate storage areas, which can place an undue burden on staff in charge of evidence holding. By nature of the locations and size of the storage areas, the maintaining of evidence is staff intensive, and results in a waste of staff time and a decreased level of service to the community. However, it is important to point out that as cumbersome as the system exists, the integrity of the evidence has been maintained. The evidence system is fully functional. There certainly is room for improvement and additional space is needed. However, the evidence system is functioning as it should albeit inadequate. Lastly, in an effort to improve the existing system, the Sheriff's Office has implemented suggested changes relative updating current policies and procedures as they pertain to the handling of evidence, as well as uncontrolled access problems that were identified by the Grand Jury. However, I feel it important to clarify that the Sheriff's Office's evidence technicians do not allow evidence to leave the facility without proper documentation. 2-4 The Sheriff agrees with the conclusions.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County
County
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.