📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Shasta County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Shasta County Sheriff's Office Firearms Confiscation
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
Page 92
With respect to t he seizure of the co mplainant’s three handguns, the Gran d Jury finds that the sheriff’s office property unit was in error in se nding out a letter of rele ase when, in fact, the complainant was ineligible to retrieve his guns at th e time he received the letter. The firearms should have remained in inventory until the matter was resolved. 92
F2
Page 93
The series of events began when the c omplainant was served with a temporary restraining order. The complainant surrendered his weapons to t he sheriff’s substation in Bu rney, starting a 30-da y temporary hold on his guns.
F3
Page 93
When the 3 0-day period ended, sheriff’s office pr operty unit personnel sent out a letter to the complainant stating that he was eligible to retrieve his handguns, pending written clearance fro m Department of Justice (DOJ). The issuance and acce ptance of the sheriff’s office letter initiated a 180- day period during which the complainant could retrieve his guns.
F4
Page 93
The complainant told the Grand Jury that he phoned the property unit and spoke with a propert y unit clerk requesting that his guns be held in saf ekeeping while he attempted to secure the necessary DOJ clearance. The Grand Jury was unable to verify his claim, as the property unit does not keep track of inquiries.
F5
Page 93
In November 2005 the complainant attempted to secure DOJ clearance but was denied based on the extension of the TRO. In March 2006 he made another attempt to secure DOJ clearance, but this too was denied because by that time the TRO had been replaced with a three-year restraining order. The data utilized by DOJ to deny the retur n of the guns was generated by the local court and had been entered by the sheriff’ s office into the co mputer and onto the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) in a ti mely manner. Ho wever, the Grand Jury finds that the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Property Unit perso nnel failed to review CLETS before sending the letter.
F6
Page 93
The letter from the prop erty unit should not h ave been sen t because at the tim e the gun owner was still restricted by a TRO and inelig ible to receive the guns. The 180-day period during which the owner could retrieve his handguns should not have been started.
F7
Page 93
In 2008, when the restraining order was lifte d, the complainant received DOJ approval to retrieve his guns. To the owner’s dism ay, when he attempted to pick up his guns, he learned from the property unit that his guns had been sold at the July 2007 auction.
F8
Page 93
When he was unable to retrieve his guns, the complainant filed a claim with Shasta County Risk Management Office for the appraised va lue of his three handguns. Based on infor mation provided by the sheriff’s office, risk management denied the claim.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Page 91Sheriff ’s Office Property Unit personnel sh ould query the California Law Enforcem ent Telecommunications System (CLETS) data base prior to mailing firearm release letters. Such inquiry would ensure a check and balance between the different agencies’ data bases and would provide the most current information.
-
R2Page 91The prope rty unit technician should docum ent the CLETS query on the P roperty Control Report before release letters are sent.
-
R3Page 91The property unit technician should document on the Property Control Reports all inquiries made by property owners. 93
-
R4Page 91The Grand Jur y recommends that the Shast a Count y Risk Managem ent Office reopen the complainant’s claim and review new information discovered by the Grand Jury indicating that the guns should not have been sold.
-
R5Page 91The Grand Jury recommends that the complainant be reimbursed for the appraised value of his three handguns. Since this report was written Shasta County Risk Management has issued a check to the complainant for the appraised value of his three handguns.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.