2018 - 19. Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendations 4

• R0
  ed i S 1 2 str u ic p tin e g r C v o i m so mi r tt i e a e l P D la i n s " t D r " i . cts 3 4 5 Moss Landing Prunedale M Pa P c e if M b ic C b o l G a n e r t r m e B o r e v e eD a e l S y c S e a h l e n 1 R R a o s bi d n H son t C w a s n y e o y M n S R C B d i 1 y d t a i i Lau reles G e ra g de t O ol r e y ra Rd i S n a C a k u C a s r a r H B m s w l H C a t w y o e n r y C a 1 c 6 o s l 8 8 H o a t T 3 v R o w V c y E o R i n y d h i a l d g 1 a B l e e l g o R l S u e S d ro a p y dR r ekraP a n R r d l e d a in c R a k T d a L ssa s jar e a Rd u l c s ia dR ns d ainI R C iv o C U n e e S r h R P 1 e d 0 P u a 1 G k u a R m d o la M a r G i d r l R p a o i d ta n s S F z R i o ll a o m d th a l i e n ll R R s d d G A D rr l oy o o e Se l c S r o R V R d ia e e o E n l U i R t z u l S l m C r d e i a 1 R n K A 0 d d y M 1 G is e o v si o n n a S a e n C r b e R e n k a i d R d l d a e H m n G C G w T r H y R e o w R l 2 y n J d o 5 p 1 r 4 t d 6 o r r o e a d i R oon J l P n l a R i A e A n e e r v d D g n C s e J a y r n f R R l y o e i on e i d R l o R M o e l d d tz d R R n d d K Bit i t n er O w B g L a In a t t r e e o r r s C l y a R k c i e s s d K i R i k n t d o g R y C w it n d y Rd o S Lo o N P noa e a k a R d w r d is C n P B V a e l a e e t l y R t l L l e o H t e c o y k Per w i R m u d R R R d y e d d c 2 n H 5 a e R L i d s n e s w e S n is P N ine R V a all C e a y Rd d c n r im e e i A e k n r t R o d d L o ak S e B P a D P a r r r R e g n a a e d c c h d n h U T S t o 1 l r s 0 e e 1 e R U R y R S i d c d 1 Indi o an Va U 0 lle S y 1 R 0 d 1 1 R d H V D w e i L e n r o y C e w a e y 1 n s y a R o 9 C n r a a 8 n d n B c S y i h g C o i t n S t a a o a R C n n d n a dy n y e y o o n n C H R o R g d a S C d n a l n a y y c on k o R s d n C R an d yon R dR a gnlia Co d el fikra d P Hwy 4 P T 6 u a r r k k ey fi e Fl l a d t C h R ol d ame Rd Hwy 46 20 10 0 20 Miles 203 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE B. Maps of Districts prone to illegal rooster keeping and illegal crimes associated with rooster keeping LasLomas Pa 1 c 7 P - i M f e i i c l R e b e D b G d M r l L W e r i o n o C o e B n l v f a S R t e e P e t r d r m a r iv e c a e y h t l e R P d o C t o r a e s r t E D o nl R ac e S d T V ra e i i a a S l l n M e R P d C a a a l h e o l p a s C C m y H a o i H l G i o s s d a i S r a a o w O t l i l d d e g a y o y o I n l M M R m a Lap i is Rd r o n S d B 6 n l C e k j g r p a 8 i a n R i l R s e r g R r d i d R m n i B M d n E g d S R e u f d a n N o i u e c a t R a e S s l s r d h o k l s T u C y b y a R p r l l B i e a R a n C L t d u y d i l e l a r a s H a R m n w R n R S d s c S y e a 1 e d d o n t s t 8 r r e 3 B l i a R o r n e v w V n H d v a g a D w b t n a E y a i i o c v e l 6 B B i s 8 i n C l l O s o o l F la r l e s o r p o n o l R r e R R o a n a i y d d d n s C s d a c y t R t o R a k T e R d oy s c i o r i M d n e d h a a g R h P a a e j e a R r U N M o r a ni R St S d g S R t 1 R 0 d u d 1 P d d S a B a e N r r n R r a S u y t J i d D S v u n i r p a d n a a e d r A G A U R e l b S r d 1 a i d 0 b b 1 dR n d rekraP c a b e o a k t o R t l d t e e S s t t R l W A s d li i s l a li l a T S M U R ass m a d o S jar a a s m R d 1 r R 0 t a i 1 d n v i a R R d d US 1 B 0 ro O 1 o m l d S e S dR ns ai nd I R a t d a n g Q H C e E R J u w s d S u h a F c C a y a o i o a n u l C l r n c e l m 1 C l h t a e o I e t 5 C e v a l r r z V R e d l 6 e a R a a R a e l d r n d le d s P k r R H L C y y u o R o d m o d R n n i i A g t a i v c R l R i e t R a e h r d a d S d S R G s w t a l d n o L R a & a J n n y i u o n G z U i a s a R l a o n d r r l d & R e i b a s d s a F R S M o i n l d o lm th a a i A ll F n j R o o R d r r d t e r R a o R San m Vice s nte Rd o i L e o a s R S S C d a d Arro D yo o S S n e o co c s R u d t d h u a o R e d s R T L l e G l 2 i e z R h u C M p a l d o n c o d yo 0 r n i r E a R n a i d a l e 1 e m T r R R d U M R o e R S d o h A 0 e d n f d 1 v H r r 1 e l 0 o d 2 e e 1 e E w n t h K i C v s S c 1 2 2 y S s e a G p t n t n 1 i 0 t y l n t o r n u o 4 t i o 1 P n r i e h 6 c i G s e H a i s r 0 w p n a e t y R D e r i 2 C 5 n d e S r T r e e C a o o n g e p a u t d r e r a o n n p l o C r y v R A f e o v p d i y o e n e i i r t m s v i R l a o d i d o s m n C l o i r o P r t e R t i i f tt e D a i o S t a i t p M o M re e l e c tz k e R l l R s d D R o d u P i d D i n s s la t t K n e i r n i t r i s c n e " t r t g t D y B r y i " C C i o . c c i o u ty u t n B t itt s n d er w W t a at C y 5 e i a r r l t R t d l i e d m e e H n s R o d K in r g C s ity R e d S R a d L 3 4 5 on n oak R d Lucas Oasis Rd Milpitas Rd Lucia Hwy 1 Nacimiento-Fergusson Rd Del Venturi Rd Mission Rd A J rg o yle l o Rd n P G laske o tt Ri r dg d e Rd a Gabilan S R a d m Jones Rd Jolon J R o d lon Pleyto Rd Lockwood New Pleyto Rd 10 5 0 10 Interlake Rd Bryson Miles 204 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE C. Illegal Rooster Keeping Operation Site Report Hudson Landing Site On January 25, 2019, approximately 11:30 am, fellow Grand Jurist Rosemarie Barnard and I went on a site visit to a single-family residence w/ property at 261 Hudson Landing, Prunedale, California. This property was identified as the site of alleged Rooster Keeping Code violations in a complaint to the Grand Jury and had also been discussed several days earlier; January 22, 2019, during an interview with Code Enforcement Officer Paul Maddox. Prior to observing the property to the rear of the house, which was open to public access and plain view from the roadway, we first attempted to contact the resident and property owner. Rosemarie knocked on the door twice without response. I also rang the doorbell; however, no one answered the door or initially responded to our attempts for contact. We proceeded to walk down the open dirt drive to see whether any recent attempt to correct code violations had been made. During the earlier interview on January 22, RMA Code Enforcement Officer Paul Mattox indicated steady but slow progress had been made to correct previously noted violations. The rear of the residence is an open field area with several nearby outbuildings. Between the residence and the outbuildings was an approx. 50-yard-long X 20-yard- wide X 6-foot-high trash pile. The heap consisted of discarded metal, wood, vegetation, dirt and rubbish. As we walked toward the outbuildings, we could hear roosters crowing from behind a crudely constructed metal and wood barrier perimeter fenced area. As I got closer, I could see through openings in the barrier roosters housed in pens or coops. There were approx. ten pens housing about forty roosters. Approximately 3-4 roosters were housed together in each individual pen. While pacing off the size of the trash heap, a woman hailed us from a rear door of the house. We spoke with her. She identified herself as the resident owner. We explained to the woman that we were following up on a complaint made to the Grand Jury. The woman said she understood and gave us further consent to be on the property. During the conversation, she referred to an earlier inspection by a man believed to be Paul Maddox. Our entire conversation remained pleasant and cordial throughout our contact. Using a digital SLR which Rosemarie brought with her to document our findings, we photographed the general area, which included the housed roosters, the pens and coops, the fencing, and the discarded trash heap. The photos were entered as proof in this investigation. It should be noted that a section of pens to the rear of the enclosure (about ½ of the enclosure) did not contain any live roosters and appeared to have been previously cleaned out and abandoned. Rosemarie and I returned to our SUV parked on Hudson Landing and drove around to Elkhorn Slough Road, which bordered the rear of the property. Railroad tracks 205 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE paralleled the back of the property and the Elkhorn roadway. We saw a disheveled man living in a lean-to shanty. the man waved at us from the other side of the railroad tracks. The man appeared to be living in squalor, secluded in the rear of the property near the railroad tracks. The tracks formed a border to the rear of the property. A pit bull type dog believed to belong to the man was tethered in place with a chain. We waved from a distance across the railroad tracks but did not converse with the man because of the distance and a language barrier. At the conclusion of our site visit we formed the opinion that while some progress may have been made in correcting some code violations on the property, as evidenced by the pile, there was still much more to be done in bringing the noted violations into compliance. There seemed to be a lack of urgency in correcting noted violations and enforcing the ordinance as it was adopted. Follow-up site visitation was random, unscheduled, and not a priority. MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE D. A copy of the only citation issued 207 208 RAPE KIT PROCESSING IN MONTEREY COUNTY SUMMARY Reports of sexual assault forensic evidence, “rape kits”, being backlogged, untested, and destroyed nationwide have been reported by news networks and have sparked ongoing media coverage throughout the United States. A rape kit is a package of items used by medical personnel for gathering and preserving physical evidence following an allegation of sexual assault. It generally includes a checklist, materials, and instructions, along with envelopes and containers to package any specimens collected during a forensic medical exam.1 These media reports allege that there are thousands of untested rape kits in the hands of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) nationwide. If true, this jeopardizes public safety and potentially circumvents victims’ rights. As a result of the media exposure, LEAs have submitted thousands of rape kits for DNA testing and caused LEAs to reconsider how this evidence is processed and maintained. The Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (MCCGJ) investigated how this critical forensic evidence is safeguarded and maintained to assure the protection of the rights of sexual assault victims. The focus of the investigation was to understand the process for rape kit processing and determine if LEAs in Monterey County have a backlog of untested rape kits. The MCCGJ found that: • LEAs in Monterey County lacked awareness and provided unclear and inconsistent information as to whether there are any backlogged rape kits. • Most LEAs in Monterey County have implemented DNA testing protocols established by the California Department of Justice (CDOJ) which have reduced the likelihood of unprocessed DNA evidence. The Rapid DNA Service, or RADS, was instituted in Monterey County in 2016 and is facilitated through a Sexual Assault Response Team (SART). • The data keeping related to these cases within and across the County LEAs is not unified and coordinated. 1 https://www.rainn.org/articles/rape-kit 209 RAPE KIT PROCESSING IN MONTEREY COUNTY • Staffing resources for investigators within LEAs are inadequate for the workload. • Recently enacted California law requires LEAs and other organizations handling DNA evidence to report the status of rape kits to the CDOJ by July 1, 2019; and it is unclear if County LEAs are prepared to meet these requirements. The MCCGJ recommends that each LEA: • should develop an interagency method to track sexual assault occurrences via a centralized database to post information to facilitate investigations. • should develop systems to track ongoing rape kit evidence to ensure effective management of cases and simplified reporting. • should augment their personnel resources on detective unit teams. • should develop a program to obtain funds for advanced forensic expertise training and recertification within the Sexual Assault and Forensic Division. • should provide an informational report to the LEAs’ governing bodies and the public to include the data sent to the CDOJ fulfilling the new requirements set forth in the California Penal Code.
• R1
  l d r a d d R e r e g n t U n a e t s c r S y d e e R B g s e C B R 1 r L L l R 0 v M T k n l d n d e 1 v d o o e i d n d & o w R t s e H f t t S f r d i e e t S A C u b U A t r t a t b e t z v t y i C b r o H e t B r S o S o n a R rs b t t r e t t d d B C i O S a n a U n l l d t y v R o S n d S d t n a R W g d e R 1 i d A ll 0 ia 1 r m A G o l e u i l s d s R a d l a R R H d d ar s tnell Rd Eck Fu h ji a Ln rt R Z d aba S la p R e d nce F o 2 R US 101 o d P t o h tt i e ll r D R r d Encinal Rd San Juan Ca Q ny u o a n i l R C d H r w ee y S k a 1 n 5 Ju 6 a n Canyon R 5 d 202 MONTEREY COUNTY’S UNENFORCED ROOSTER KEEPING ORDINANCE B. Maps of Districts prone to illegal rooster keeping and illegal crimes associated with rooster keeping Monterey County Supervisorial District 3 US 101 T re h f e le c 2 t 0 t 1 h 0 e S a u d p o e p r t v io is n o o ri f a M l D o i n s t t e ri r c e t y B C o o u u n n d t a y r ies Jense H n wy 1 R d Str P L aw a a b j s a e r r L r o y o R m d as Aromas 101 SU Hwy H 1 w 5 y 6 2 5 Hwy 156 H L C o i i g t c ie h a s w l R a & y o U s a r d & b s a M n a A jo re r a R s oads 201
• R2
  The hindrance to implementation and enforcement created by a process developed by Environmental Health Bureau, and
• R3
  The unwillingness of multiple agencies to enforce it. Monterey County needs to enforce its rooster keeping operations ordinance. All agencies involved must coordinate their efforts to end illegal rooster keeping and the associated crime and disease. Monterey County has a legal ordinance. Monterey County should enforce it with equanimity and impartiality. The MCCGJ agrees with this quotation from the summary of Perez V. County of Monterey.4 “The County has an interest in establishing humane and sanitary standards for the keeping of roosters." It is the recommendation of the MCCGJ that The Ordinance should be immediately implemented and enforced in Monterey County.