South Lake Tahoe*

Counter reports are complaint reports taken by a law enforcement agency at its facility.

A citizen requested that a child endangerment report be taken, during regular business hours, at the counter of the SLTPD.

The individual behind the counter stated that no officer was available to take the report and requested that the citizen go home and wait for an officer on patrol to come by and take the report.

Due to possible neighbor conflicts, the citizen did not want a police patrol car parked in front of their home.

The citizen asked to speak to the Watch Commander but was advised that no supervisor was available.

The SLTPD has limited hours of counter service available for the public to file police reports or conduct other business. The hours are 8:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The front doors of the police station are locked at all other times. An intercom is available for the public to contact police staff at other times if needed.

Section 4.1.2, "Desk Complaint", of the SLTPD manual states: "Every 'call for service' received by the Department will be recorded on a numbered Complaint Dispatch Card (36 SLTPD) and shall represent, at a minimum, the Department response to that 'call for service'. The person receiving the call shall record on the complaint card the caller's name, address, date and time, type of incident, and other available, relevant information." Dispatch shall assure the call is appropriately numbered and assigned for action. • Upon recording the disposition of the call on the complaint card, the dispatcher shall enter the appropriate computer data. The "Desk Complaint" section of the SLTPD Manual does not address procedures • for filing a report or complaint from the public at the Police Station.

The Grand Jury requested statistical data regarding the citations issued for CVC Section 22507.8 and the training records of HSP required to be maintained by HSP and provided to the City upon request, as a condition of the terms of the Contract between the City and HSP. The material provided in response to the Grand Jury's request was incomplete.

The City's position is based upon its interpretation of City Code Section 2-24. Section 2-24, sets forth the powers and duties of the City Manager and states in part:... "he shall have the following powers and duties: A. ... To enforce all laws and ordinances of the city...." (Emphasis added) It is the position of the City that the specific language contained in Section 2-24 allows the City Manager to delegate the power and duty to issue handicapped parking citations to private security patrol officers. Presently, High Sierra Patrol issues citations pursuant to this section.

CVC Section 22507.8 is a state law, not a law or ordinance of the city.

CVC Section 21 states in part: "...no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein." (Emphasis added)

City Code Section 2-24 grants the City Manager the power to "enforce all laws and ordinances of the city." It does not, however, give the City Manager peace officer status, nor does it empower the City Manager to enforce violations of state law, such as violations of the Vehicle Code in general, or Section 22507.8 in particular.

Section 40200.5(a) of the CVC expressly authorizes the City to contract with a private entity to process notices of parking violations. The CVC does not expressly authorize any local authority to contract with a private entity to enforce parking or any other violations of the code. In light of CVC Sections 21 and 40200.5(a), the Grand Jury believes that had the California Legislature intended to authorize local authorities to contract with private companies for the enforcement of parking and/or other violations of the Vehicle Code, it would have written statutory language, similar to CVC Section 40200.5(a), expressly authorizing local authorities to do so.

It is the position of the City that on June 7, 1994, the City Council authorized private security patrol officers who complete a basic training course through the Police Department to issue parking citations for violations of the California Vehicle Code Section 22507.8. This position is erroneous. The Minutes for the meeting in question reflect the Item (authority for Private Security Patrol Officers to issue Handicap Parking Citations) was "received and filed." An action to "receive and file," in common parlance, is neither an approval nor a disapproval. The Minutes do not indicate that any affirmative action was taken by the City Council to authorize private security patrols to issue disabled parking citations.

The City entered into an Agreement with HSP in a contract entitled City of South Lake Tahoe Agreement for Services Park Patrol Services. (sic)

Pertinent provisions of the Agreement include the following: Section 1. HSP "shall perform the services described in Exhibit A;" Section 5. "At any time during the term of this agreement, City may request that HIGH SIERRA PATROL perform Extra Work. ... HIGH SIERRA PATROL shall not perform ... Extra Work without written authorization from CITY;"(sic) Section 17. "This agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between CITY and HIGH SIERRRA PATROL;" (sic) Section 18. "This agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document...;" Exhibit A directs HSP to patrol seven (7) designated areas owned or controlled by the City within its jurisdiction. HSP duties include "informing the users ... of all City Ordinances [and] Issue citation(s) as the situations warrant it."(sic)

There is nothing in the May 2000 contract that either authorizes or obligates HSP to issue notices of violation for illegal parking generally, or illegal parking in disabled parking spaces in particular.

Notwithstanding the fact that the CVC does not expressly authorize the City to contract with a private entity for the enforcement of Section 22507.8, the contract between the City and HSP is insufficient on its face to authorize HSP to issue citations for violations of the CVC on private property within the City's jurisdiction. The Grand Jury believes that the procedures used by the City to authorize HSP • enforcement of CVC Section 22507.8 are legally unauthorized for three separate reasons: a. City Code 2-14 does not empower the City Manager to enforce State laws; b. The CVC does not expressly authorize the City to contract with a private entity to enforce 22507.8; and c. The contract between the City and HSP does not authorize HSP to issue notices of violation for section 22507.8 of the CVC.