📋
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.
Score: -4
(0/3/4)
El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2013-2014
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-2014 Sheriff's Vehicle Abatement Program is Necessary, but Needs New Rules
Published: June 30, 2013
4 pages
⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
F5
Property owners felt law enforcement and county personnel treated them unfairly by giving notice that their vehicles were public nuisances.
F6
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.
F7
Ten days to request a hearing is insufficient in a rural county where many people receive their mail at a Post Office Box.
F8
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.
F9
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.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
-
R2Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
-
R3Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
-
R4Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
-
R5The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This Report has been provided to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. The Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court additionally requests that the responses be sent electronically as a “Word” file or “PDF” file to facilitate the economical and timely distribution of such responses. Please email responses to the El Dorado County Grand Jury at: courtadmin@eldoradocourt.org ATTACHMENT [ Adobe Reader is required to view attachment ] El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office – Vehicle Abatement Program
Agency Responses 19
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 464KB)
October 09, 2014
•
2 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 470KB)
October 09, 2014
•
3 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 471KB)
October 09, 2014
•
4 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 473KB)
June 18, 2011
•
4 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 481KB)
November 04, 2013
•
3 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Implemented
Scheduled: FY 2014-15
Score: 0
The respondent agrees with the finding. 4. When patients are released from PHF, there is a shortage of transitional housing destinations. Response: The respondent agrees with this finding. Recommendations 1. The recently increased physician time with patients should be maintained. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. HHSA has taken measures to secure additional psychiatrist hours by working with County Human Resources to increase Psychiatrist compensation, as well as increased outreach to Psychiatrist candidates through contract services as well as additional recruitment efforts ...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 483KB)
October 09, 2014
•
6 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 484KB)
May 12, 2005
•
7 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: -1
(+0, 0, -1)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The respondent disagrees with the finding. See response to finding number 1. 4. When deficiencies in the project became apparent no action was taken to require the developer to fix the deficiencies and bring the project into compliance with mandatory legal requirements. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. See response to finding number 1. Recommendations 1. The Planning Department and Planning Commission need to reevaluate Golden Center Plaza parking as built based upon County ordinances and standards and report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors detailing any...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 485KB)
November 11, 2013
•
4 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: -1
(+0, 0, -1)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted and is not reasonable. Like all exterior areas including the parking lot, parking lot stairs, and the public street and bus stop, the exterior stairs are exposed to inclement weather conditions. It is unreasonable to cover the stairs when the same concerns exist with all exterior areas of the property which cannot be covered or otherwise protected to ameliorate safety concerns. In addition, the landlord has recently installed a permanent shade structure that covers the exterior stairs. Although not designed for weather, it ...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 487KB)
October 09, 2014
•
7 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 489KB)
October 09, 2014
•
7 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 495KB)
October 09, 2014
•
5 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 500KB)
October 09, 2014
•
6 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 501KB)
May 09, 2006
•
6 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 660KB)
October 09, 2014
•
7 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: -2
(+0, 0, -2)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
Respondent agrees with the finding. 8. All County permit fees were later refunded by the Board of Supervisors agenda item 11-161 without explanation. Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. 9. The El Dorado County Grading Ordinance may put undue burden on simple maintenance on rural roads when strict adherence to the Ordinance is practiced. Response: Respondent disagrees in part with this finding. The Grading Ordinance allows maintenance of roads without a permit. Section 15.14.140.J of the Grading Ordinance exempts from the Grading Permit process: "Maintenance of existing firebreaks and...
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
Respondent agrees with the finding. 8. All County permit fees were later refunded by the Board of Supervisors agenda item 11-161 without explanation. Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. 9. The El Dorado County Grading Ordinance may put undue burden on simple maintenance on rural roads when strict adherence to the Ordinance is practiced. Response: Respondent disagrees in part with this finding. The Grading Ordinance allows maintenance of roads without a permit. Section 15.14.140.J of the Grading Ordinance exempts from the Grading Permit process: "Maintenance of existing firebreaks and...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 722KB)
June 10, 2014
•
5 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The respondent agrees with the finding. Grand Jury Evaluation of Findings As noted in Finding #1, the implementation of AB 109 has created several negative impacts to inmate populations at both of our jails. Since these problems are serious, and affect other county departments including Probation and Sheriff, they will be specifically addressed in a separate grand jury report to be released later this year focusing on how AB 109 has affected our county. Based on our inspections of both facilities, we commend the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office under the command of Cpt. Peshon for hiring very...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 735KB)
June 10, 2014
•
5 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors believes that the identified fee waivers are consistent with Board discretionary authority 14-0563 2A Page 16 of 17
to waive fees because the waivers were in the best interest of the public. While reasonable people can disagree whether theses specific circumstances fall within the confines of Policy B-2, policies established by the Board of Supervisors provide general guidance, and should not be construed to limit the Board's lawful authority to consider unique situations that have an overall public benefit. In general, Policy ...
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 750KB)
June 10, 2014
•
5 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
EDC Board of Supervisors Response(PDF, 806KB)
June 10, 2014
•
5 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
Sheriff Vehicle Abatement Program Response(PDF, 737KB)
July 18, 2014
•
4 pages
• 9 responses
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
None of the allegations identified in the initial reason for this report were proven to the Grand Jury.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
Discontinue the $100 fee charged to vehicle and/or property owners who wish to have a public hearing to contest the nuisance finding.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
Most of the vehicles given notice as public nuisances are voluntarily removed by the property and/or vehicle owners.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
Change El Dorado County Sheriff (SOP) procedures to comply with Title 10.16.040 A, where “…regularly salaried full-time employees of the county sheriff’s office…” have the ability to administer and enforce the program. The Grand Jury acknowledges that during discussion of the concerns arising from this investigation, the Sheriff immediately agreed to make the changes recommended in numbers 1 and 2 above.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
Although search warrants are not often used by the Vehicle Abatement Officer, the warrants issued were deficient in many ways. There was little or no showing of probable cause within the officer’s affidavit, and each document was vague in the all-important description of the property to be searched and the extent of that search.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
Assure warrants for the Vehicle Abatement program are raised to the standard of search warrants generally employed by law enforcement. We recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
Law enforcement and county personnel often came on private property without either a warrant or the consent of the owner to view, give notice or supervise towing of the vehicles.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
Amend ordinance 10.16.070 pertaining to Vehicle Abatement to provide increased time for the property owner to request a hearing by allowing 20, not 10, days from the time of actually mailing a notice.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
The Sheriff is the moving party of the action to take the vehicle. The ordinance should mandate that the hearing officer be independent from the Sheriff's Department so that the hearing will be seen as a fair proceeding. RESPONSES Responses to both findings and recommendations in this Report are required by law in accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05. Address responses to: The Honorable Suzanne N. Kingsbury, presiding judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, 1354 Johnson B...
Response: Unknown
Score: 0