Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Share and Share Alike a Report on Asset Forfeiture
⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 32 findings
F1
AF was instituted to deprive persons of profits made and tools used in illegal activities. “Law enforcement is the principal objective of forfeiture.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
all AF expenditures and their purposes be directly linked to “law enforcement needs”, e.g. training, equipment, and community anti-drug programs etc. (Findings 1, 9, 12, 19)
F2
When AF money is seized, it is deposited into a trust fund account and held until it is either returned to the owner or forfeited.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
If the seized money is claimed by the owner and the AF officer deems the money is “ill gotten”, then a civil court case will be pursued.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The MCDAO AF division handles the civil portion of AF cases. Any case which may involve criminal marijuana or drug activity is referred to the criminal division of the MCDAO.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Seized assets, other than cash or bank accounts, may include autos, coins, jewelry, real property, or other personal property.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Assets, other than cash, are held in evidence rooms or in the MCSO compound.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
COMMET is a grant funded division of the MCSO. COMMET is staffed by a Sergeant and a Deputy. They are aided by unpaid volunteers.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Grand Jury heard testimony regarding the recent application for COMMET grant money. It became necessary to “beg the Board of Supervisors to take the money” to fund the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
the grant application for COMMET always be approved. Without this resource, the MCSO can not effectively eradicate marijuana production within the county. (Finding 8)
F9
The primary task of COMMET is the prevention and eradication of non-medical marijuana production.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
COMMET makes a limited number of raids in cooperation with the Federal authorities. These raids result in larger seizures than other operations.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
MMCTF is multi-jurisdictional, and consists of a BNE Commander, local law enforcement, and other State agencies. Their primary work involves hard drugs. The MMCTF uses their monthly meetings to discuss strategy, on-going investigations, planning drug raids, and probation sweeps.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The LEAA function is to direct AF funds toward anti-drug and anti-gang education and community based programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)
R5
the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)
F13
The LEAA does not have an MOU.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2
an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)
R3
LEAA scheduled meetings be held, published, and open to the public. (Findings 13- 14)
R5
the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)
F14
The LEAA has not held a meeting as a stand alone panel.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2
an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)
R3
LEAA scheduled meetings be held, published, and open to the public. (Findings 13- 14)
R5
the MCPD participate fully as an equal on the LEAA panel as required by H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii), and the MCAFU. (Findings 12-14, 17)
F15
LEAA funds are distributed annually. H&SC §11489(b) requires these funds to be distributed quarterly. (See Appendix B)
Related Recommendations (3)
R2
an operational MOU for the LEAA panel be written, stating its mission and intended goals consistent with H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 12-15, 17)
R4
funds dispersed to the LEAA occur quarterly as required by H&SC §11489(b). (Finding 15)
R14
MCAFU disbursements to agencies under the operational MOU, be revised to reflect H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)-§11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 15, 18, 30-31) Ref: Fig. 1; Method 2 COMMENTS It became clear during the investigation, that to most people, the Asset Forfeiture program is confusing and commonly misunderstood. While the pertaining statues and codes are clear about percentages of funds to be distributed to the law enforcement agencies, they are not as clear as they could be about how funds can be used for drug education and law enforcement needs. It is also clear that there is confusion on how AF funds can be used, which may have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the pertinent codes and statues. Agencies need to implement a self-policing policy to insure the proper use of AF funds. Budgets must include all items that would “normally” be purchased through a budget. Reliance upon anticipated AF funds is supplanting, regardless of how it is done. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation. They were also pleased to discover that the county’s law enforcement agencies are cooperative and are performing their duties in a most professional way.
F16
LEAA funds are held in a separate County account until disbursement.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The MCPD has not been asked for input or opinion regarding the distribution or spending of LEAA funds.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The MCDAO disperses AF funds, as directed by the MCAFU. H&SC §11489(b) requires these funds to be distributed quarterly. (See Appendix B)
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
all State AF funds be accumulated, transferred, and distributed quarterly to local agencies as required by H&SC §11489(b). (Finding 18)
F19
The sharing and spending of forfeited assets are different under Federal and State guidelines.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Federal AF funds are kept separate from State AF funds to prevent commingling.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A), with the exception of subparagraphs i & ii, is mute concerning AF expenditure guidelines. (See Appendix B)
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Up to 80% of the net seizure proceeds in Federal cases may be returned to the finder agency. An agency makes a claim, based on their contribution, on a “DAG 71” form.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
The Grand Jury heard testimony that AF monies could be spent on law enforcement equipment, supplies, salaries for new positions for a limited time, overtime pay, and anti-drug/anti-gang programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
MCAFU revise their operational MOU to reflect the strictest possible definition of expenditures to avoid the appearance of supplanting. The MCEO and the MCACO should be consulted for budget and audit purposes. (Findings 23, 28, 31)
R12
all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2
F24
The MCACO has not conducted AF audits on a regular basis of agencies within their jurisdiction. There is no record of external audits.
Related Recommendations (2)
R8
audits of AF funds and their use be conducted annually as required by H&SC §11469(h). (Finding 24)
R9
details of all AF expenditures with their reimbursement requests be forwarded to the MCACO in a timely manner. (Findings 24-25)
F25
The accounting records for the MCDAO are detailed. These details are not forwarded to the MCACO when reimbursements for AF funds are requested.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9
details of all AF expenditures with their reimbursement requests be forwarded to the MCACO in a timely manner. (Findings 24-25)
R10
AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)
F26
The MCACO has not matched requests for AF reimbursements with related records or invoices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)
F27
The AF accounting records for the MCSO and COMMET are detailed and can be readily matched with the records of the MCACO.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
AF reimbursement requests be matched to records or invoices. (Findings 25-27)
F28
AF purchases totaling $10,000 or more, require BOS approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2
F29
The MCSO used AF money for law enforcement equipment, supplies, and donations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
all County AF expenditures of $5,000 or more require BOS approval. (Findings 23, 28-29, 31) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2
F30
As shown by Figure 1, the disbursement formulas contained in the MCAFU MOU and H&SC §11489(b), result in different disbursements.
Related Recommendations (2)
R13
AF disbursements made to the MCDAO fall within the spirit of H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)(2)(A). (Finding 30) Ref: Fig. 1;Method 2
R14
MCAFU disbursements to agencies under the operational MOU, be revised to reflect H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)-§11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 15, 18, 30-31) Ref: Fig. 1; Method 2 COMMENTS It became clear during the investigation, that to most people, the Asset Forfeiture program is confusing and commonly misunderstood. While the pertaining statues and codes are clear about percentages of funds to be distributed to the law enforcement agencies, they are not as clear as they could be about how funds can be used for drug education and law enforcement needs. It is also clear that there is confusion on how AF funds can be used, which may have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the pertinent codes and statues. Agencies need to implement a self-policing policy to insure the proper use of AF funds. Budgets must include all items that would “normally” be purchased through a budget. Reliance upon anticipated AF funds is supplanting, regardless of how it is done. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation. They were also pleased to discover that the county’s law enforcement agencies are cooperative and are performing their duties in a most professional way.
F31
Use of AF funds to supplant budgets is forbidden.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
MCAFU disbursements to agencies under the operational MOU, be revised to reflect H&SC §11469(b) and H&SC §11489(b)-§11489(b)(2)(A)(ii). (Findings 15, 18, 30-31) Ref: Fig. 1; Method 2 COMMENTS It became clear during the investigation, that to most people, the Asset Forfeiture program is confusing and commonly misunderstood. While the pertaining statues and codes are clear about percentages of funds to be distributed to the law enforcement agencies, they are not as clear as they could be about how funds can be used for drug education and law enforcement needs. It is also clear that there is confusion on how AF funds can be used, which may have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the pertinent codes and statues. Agencies need to implement a self-policing policy to insure the proper use of AF funds. Budgets must include all items that would “normally” be purchased through a budget. Reliance upon anticipated AF funds is supplanting, regardless of how it is done. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation. They were also pleased to discover that the county’s law enforcement agencies are cooperative and are performing their duties in a most professional way.
F32
Testimony revealed that morale among most of the agencies is high and they work well together.
No recommendations for this finding
Comments 1
-
CO1It became clear during the investigation, that to most people, the Asset Forfeiture program is confusing and commonly misunderstood. While the pertaining statues and codes are clear about percentages of funds to be distributed to the law enforcement agencies, they are not as clear as they could be about how funds can be used for drug education and law enforcement needs. It is also clear that there is confusion on how AF funds can be used, which may have resulted in some inadvertent violations of the pertinent codes and statues. Agencies need to implement a self-policing policy to insure the proper use of AF funds. Budgets must include all items that would “normally” be purchased through a budget. Reliance upon anticipated AF funds is supplanting, regardless of how it is done. The Grand Jury wishes to thank all the interviewees for their cooperation. They were also pleased to discover that the county’s law enforcement agencies are cooperative and are performing their duties in a most professional way.