📋
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.

Tulare County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Tulare County Jail Tour “we Will BE the Difference”

View PDF View Full Original

Findings 18 findings

F1
The complainant was on PRCS at the time of the incident.
F2
The complainant was classified as a high-risk, chronic drug user and was not drug tested when taken into custody.
F3
Reasonable cause was present when complainant was stopped, searched and detained by law enforcement.
F4
For individuals on PRCS and homeless, a new policy was implemented by the Tulare County Probation Office requiring GPS monitoring.
F5
The Officer used the TASER within the guidelines of the Tulare Police Department policy.
F6
The complainant’s allegations against the Tulare Police Department were not substantiated.
F7
The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F8
The Office of the District Attorney has the prosecutorial discretion to determine which cases will be prosecuted and those which will not. FINDINGS: F1. The Tulare County Sheriff’s staff did not follow established use of force policies and procedures. F2. The Tulare County Grand Jury found inconsistencies between written reports and video footage. F3. Evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury did not indicate if additional training and/or discipline had been administered to all participants in the incident. F4. Subsequent to the Grand Jury’s receipt of this complaint, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department has instituted: a) comprehensive correctional officer training; b) reforms in hiring practices; c) review of disciplinary processes; and, d) upgraded technology. F5. The Tulare County Grand Jury found misconceptions to exist on the part of the staff of the Office of the District Attorney with respect to the investigative role, jurisdiction, and responsibilities of the Grand Jury. F6. After review of all evidence presented, the Grand Jury determined that physical abuse occurred and unwarranted force was used. F7. The Grand Jury was not advised by the Office of the District Attorney as to the rationale for declining prosecution of this case.
F9
The cost per inmate, per meal dropped from $1.48 in FY 2007-2008, to $1.36 in FY 2014-2015.
F10
Two mobile chicken coops were designed and built for the TCSO. They provide approximately one thousand eggs per day. This accounts for half of the eggs consumed by the inmates.
F11
The initial savings in the cost of eggs was $1,530 per week. Annual savings is estimated at $53,000.
F12
The TCSO is in the process of acquiring two additional mobile chicken coops.
F13
All beef and pork consumed by the inmates is completely produced by the TCSO farming program. About 4,000 lbs. of hanging meat (beef and/or pork) is provided weekly.
F14
By not purchasing outside-sourced beef and pork, there is an approximate $320,000 annual savings.
F15
Approximately 120,000 pounds per year of tomatoes, bell peppers, squash, eggplant, okra, sweet corn, potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, lettuce, onions, cabbage, Fresno chilies, Jalapenos, watermelon, and cantaloupe are grown by the farming program. This results in significant annual cost savings.
F16
Excess fruits and vegetables are traded to packing houses and gleaning organizations for other produce not grown by the TCSO farming program.
F17
The farming program also has benefits by teaching agricultural and pastoral trades to inmates. Some of the County’s programs provide competency certificates to participating inmates.
F18
The TCSO operates six (6) inmate work crews. There are two (2) litter removal crews, one (1) tire abatement crew, one (1) gleaning crew, one (1) garden and farming crew and one (1) beef and hog crew.

Recommendations 3