Law Enforcement Evidence Handling Units The Value of Transparency in the Nevada

Adherence to the requirement for a complete inventory upon a change of evidence technician or supervisor: The Grass Valley Police Department has and will continue to adhere to this requirement. Audits will be diligently scheduled upon the change of an evidence technician or evidence supervisor. These audits will include a 100% inventory of all firearms, money, and narcotics. These audits were performed in 2012 and 2015 upon the change of evidence technicians, and again in 2016 upon the appointment of a new Chief of Police.

Random spot inventories need to be performed and documented: Although random “spot inventories” are performed on a regular basis by the evidence sergeant and Captain, they have not been consistently documented. GVPD has initiated a protocol for capturing and documenting these spot inventories. The evidence sergeant will keep and maintain the records of his audit and inventory activity and it will be available to the Captain, Chief of Police, or an independent auditor upon request.

Inventories of firearms, narcotics, and money must be conducted on at least a quarterly basis: The random spot inventories conducted by the evidence sergeant and captain have and will continue to include checking of firearms, narcotics, and money. These random spot inventories will be conducted quarterly at a minimum.

External audits must be conducted on a biennial basis at a minimum: External audits have been and will continue to be conducted on a biennial basis. Current GVPD Status GVPD has fully complied with recommendation R7. A complete inventory was conducted in April of 2016. Documentation of random spot inventories and quarterly firearm, narcotics, and money inventories is being maintained in digital format. An external audit was conducted in April of 2016. Response to Recommendation R7 by TPD The recommendation has been partially implemented but will not be fully implemented. As indicated in Finding #6, the Truckee Police Department currently complies with the

Most of the Supervisors believe ethics refers to the Form 700 filings required from elected officials each year by the FPPC. Response to Finding F5 Disagree. The annual Form 700 filing is required by the California Government Code Section 87200 as a means for judicial, elected and appointed officials to publicly disclose certain economic interests. The Board understands that ethics laws extend beyond the Form 700 to encompass a comprehensive and complex array of issues ranging from Open Meetings Law (the “Brown Act”), public contracting, due process, perquisites and other official acts to codes of conduct when we are off-duty as well. Current Status Regarding Finding F5 The Jury recognizes that the ethics training the Supervisors receive does cover much more than just the Form 700 requirements and accepts their statement.

The Order and Decorum lacks sufficient guidance to Supervisors in assisting them in their personal decision making on questions of recusal. Response to Finding F7 Partially agree. Because the Board members receive focused ethics training that meets the legal requirements of AB 1234, the Order and Decorum is not intended for that purpose. Instead, it is designed to provide general guidance on the conduct of meetings. However, item #13 of the Order and Decorum does seek to address the matter of abstention and recusal. As indicated in Responses R2 and R3 below, the Board will consider revisions to this document during its annual workshop in January 2017.