⚠️ Translation Notice:
This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected:
F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F24
Findings and Recommendations
7 findings
The Napa Special Investigations Bureau was formally established on March 1, 1976, through a state grant funded by the California Office of Criminal Justice Planning. Response, County Executive Officer. The County Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Finding #6. CPD and SHPD contribute funding in lieu of personnel. Response, County Executive Officer. The County Executive Officer agrees with this finding. Finding #18. NSIB, in conjunction with the DA, Adult Probation Department and the California Department of Corrections Parole Unit, is involved in a cooperative effort to coordinate and pursue intensive supervision of adult probationers and parolees. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer disagrees partially with the finding. It is only the responsibility of the Probation Department to supervise adult probationers. The Probation Officer assigned to NSIB is responsible for intensive supervision of some drug offenders on probation. Anyone on State Parole is supervised by a state parole agent and does not coincide with the efforts of the Probation Department. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with this finding and incorporates by reference the response and explanation of the Chief Probation Officer.
No recommendations for this finding
The DEC Protocol was implemented four years ago and is a collaborative effort by NSIB, CWS, Napa County DA and QVMC. Response, County Executive Officer. The County Executive Officer agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
State and County budget cuts have reduced the number of NSIB agents compared to past years. Response, County Executive Officer. The County Executive Officer disagrees in part with this finding. NSIB is a multi-jurisdictional agency and all agencies in Napa County, the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and California Highway Patrol have contributed officers or funds to the task force in the past. Napa County serves as the fiscal agent of the task force and through the Sheriff's Department provides one Sergeant and two 1 Deputies to NSIB on a full time basis. Over the last few years, other law enforcement agencies, not the County/Sheriff's Office, have reduced the number of officers allocated to the task force on a full time basis. Napa County received grant funding from the California Methamphetamine Enforcement Team program that allowed for the allocation of additional officer overtime hours towards methamphetamine eradication throughout the County. Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy to not backfill reduced or depleted grant funds, the Sheriff's Office has eliminated the additional officer overtime once dedicated to methamphetamine enforcement due to a reduction in grant funds received.
No recommendations for this finding
The PO attached to NSIB, like all Napa County POs does not carry a firearm. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
NSIB has expressed the desire to have the County arm the PO attached to NSIB. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding and incorporates by reference the August 10, 2010 response and explanation of the Chief Probation Officer.
No recommendations for this finding
The Probation Department Safety Committee currently has not recommended arming the PO attached to NSIB. Response, Chief Probation Officer. The Chief Probation Officer agrees with this finding.
No recommendations for this finding
Other than a list of "guidelines" provided by the California Attorney General in 2008, the State does not provide the County or NSIB with any clear regulation for the cultivation and/or distribution of medical marijuana. Response, Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding. 2
No recommendations for this finding