Stanislaus County Grand Jury • 2011-2012 • Agency Response
Response to: 12-06C Stanislaus County Sheriff

Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department Case 12-06c*

Published: July 02, 2012 3 pages
Ver PDF original

Findings and Recommendations 2 findings

F1 Page 1
The SCCGJ finds that the sheriff did not thoroughly and completely investigate violations to a standing court restraining order. This could be indicative of a lax attitude toward enforcing a restraining order within the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department. <b>Response:</b> The respondent disagrees with the finding. Deputies acted appropriately and professionally in all cases reported by "Person B." Unless there's probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and/or all elements of the crime exist, deputies will not detain, cite or arrest. In these reported cases, there were no independent witnesses or corroborating evidence. The complainant, "Person B" refused to cooperate with Sheriff's investigators and "Person K" the complainant's husband is currently being prosecuted for an alleged criminal act as a result of this on-going dispute.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 2
The SCCGJ recommends the Sheriff's Department institute a procedure to monitor multiple violations of a restraining order and give them a higher priority enforcement priority. Records of these violations should be available to a deputy in the patrol vehicle and continually updated. Multiple violations of restraining orders show disrespect for the law and could lead to consequences the restraining order was designed to prevent. Response: The respondent agrees in part and disagrees in part with the recommendation. Multiple calls for service at the same location, alleged violations of court orders, reports filed by deputy sheriffs are all automated and electronically available from the mobile computers in the patrol cars. The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, the Integrated Criminal Justice Information Systems, (ICJIS) and restraining orders issued by the Court are entered into Department of Justice (DOJ) database systems, all accessible by deputies. Given current demand for our services that require an immediate priority response to protect life and property, the investigation of alleged misdemeanor restraining order violations will remain a priority 3 call for service.
F2 Page 1
Although B's lack of full cooperation with the Sheriff's Department on some matters is troublesome, the SCCGJ is of the opinion that this is not is a basis to deny investigation and enforcement of the restraining order. These are separate issues. In this case, a lack of proper enforcement has deprived both B and D equal protection under the law. Stanislaus 250 East Hackett Rd. • Modesto, CA 95358 (209) 525-7216 • FAX (209) 525-7106 www.scsdonline.com STRIVING TO BE THE BEST <u>.</u> ? The Honorable Ricardo Cordova July 2, 2012 Re: Response to Civil Grand Jury Report 12-06C <b>Response:</b> The respondent disagrees with the finding. All incidents were properly and thoroughly investigated. <b>Recommendations:</b>
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 2
The SCCGJ recommends that the Sheriff's Department evaluate the policy of no follow up investigation for misdemeanor offenses, such as, but not limited to, "willful disobedience of any process order lawfully issued by a court". <b>Response:</b> The respondent agrees with the recommendation. The Sheriff's Department re-evaluated applicable policies as recommended. While the Sheriff's Department will always do it's very best to protect and serve the community with the resources we have, the harsh reality of our economic climate is that all calls for service have to be prioritized and with limited investigative resources, there are insufficient resources to follow up on alleged misdemeanor criminal activity especially where there's no direct evidence a crime was committed, no independent witnesses, no corroborating evidence and/or uncooperative victim(s). < 1 The Honorable Ricardo Cordova July 2, 2012 Re: Response to Civil Grand Jury Report 12-06C

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.