📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1998-1999

County District Attorney’s Office

2 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 3 findings

F2 Page 82
Prior to this incident, Party and Possessor were friendly with police officers who investigated this case and have gone fishing together on Possessor's party boat.
F3 Page 82
DDA’s handling of the matter was inadequate as he did not have Police contact Party. No investigation was done regarding Party and no charges were brought against Possessor. The DDA's rationale for dropping the criminal charges was that there was no proof of any criminal activity. The Grand Jury finds that this decision was based on an inadequate investigation.
F4 Page 82
Complainant has not recovered his property. He has a court order for return of the property, but Possessor, who knowingly has possession of stolen property, insists that Complainant pay substantial damages for its retrieval.

Recommendations 4