HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2012 c4 grand jury report property & evidenceA counci lacen ba iepont
Meeting Dat e
8-7-1 2
Item Number
C 4
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Steve Gesell, Police Chie f
Prepared By : Lieutenant Jeff Smit h
SUBJECT :GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPERTY AN D
EVIDENCE ROO M
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to sign a response letter to the Grand Jury's report on property an d
evidence rooms consistent with findings and recommended responses as outline in this report .
DISCUSSIO N
The 201 1-2012 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury chose to examine all law enforcement agenc y
property and evidence rooms within the County of San Luis Obispo to determine compliance wit h
the recommended policies of recognized property and evidence organizations, as well as with thei r
own respective departmental policy . During the process the San Luis Obispo Police Departmen t
completed the Property & Evidence System Audit Guide prepared through the Californi a
Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training (CAPOST) and provided a copy of curren t
policies and procedures related to property and evidence . In addition, the Police Department
participated in an on-site inspection with members of the Grand Jury . The Grand Jury's final repor t
made the following recommendations :
1.All law enforcement agencies in the County should adhere to their respective policie s
relating to property/evidence room inspections .
2.The San Luis Obispo Police Department should store handguns in a safe, neat an d
orderly manner .
All personnel assigned to property/evidence rooms in the county should continue thei r
training and /or update their knowledge through professional organizations . It is also
highly recommended that they join the county chapter of California Association fo r
Property and Evidence (CAPE).
4 . Submit evidence of a full property/evidence room audit to the Grand Jury .
The Grand Jury recommends that the police chiefs and County Sheriff explore th e
feasibility of a countywide property/evidence room consolidation, possibly under a joint
powers agreement .
The San Luis Obispo Police Department is required to respond to the Presiding Judge of the San
Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 .
Staff has prepared the following responses and recommendations to each individual Grand Jur y
recommendation :
Grand Jury Recommendation 1 : Adhere to property/evidence room policies .
Currently the San Luis Obispo Police Department is in compliance with its policy related t o
property/evidence room inspections . The San Luis Obispo Police Department consistently conduct s
bi-annual inspections each year .
Grand Jury Recommendation 6 : Store handguns in a safe, neat and orderly manner .
Currently all handguns received by the Property and Evidence Clerk are visually inspected to ensur e
they have been properly made safe prior to storage . After the visual inspection the handguns ar e
stored based on their current disposition (i .e. evidence, storage, safekeeping, destruction). Th e
Grand Jury's concern was that numerous handguns were piled on a shelf', limiting the orderly
removal/examination of a particular firearm .
The San Luis Obispo Police Department has recently purchased boxes for the storage of handguns .
Upon receiving the boxes, the Property and Evidence Clerk will place each gun in a box and return
it to its assigned storage location . In the future, the Property and Evidence Clerk will continue to
visually inspect each handgun received into evidence but prior to storage will place the handgun i n
one of the newly purchased boxes .
Grand Jury Recommendation 9 : Continue training and join county chapter of CAPE .
Currently the San Luis Obispo Property and Evidence Clerk is up to date on all required training .
She is also a member of the county chapter CAPE (California Association for Property an d
Evidence). This past year she attended the annual CAPE training seminar and a CAPE chapte r
meeting which included specialized training .
Grand Jury Recommendation 11 : Submit evidence of a full property/evidence room audit .
On March 19, 2012 the Investigation Lieutenant, Sergeant and Property and -Evidence Cler k
completed an audit of all the property and evidence held by the San Luis Obispo Police Department .
Refer to the attached memorandum for further details .
Grand Jury Recommendation 12 : Feasibility of a county-wide property/evidence roo m
consolidation .
On June 13, 2012, the Sheriff discussed the feasibility of countywide property/evidence
consolidation with the Police Chiefs at the Criminal Justice Administrators Associatio n
meeting . As a result of that meeting, the Sheriff contacted the San Mateo Sheriff's Office . San
Mateo Sheriff's office was mentioned in the Grand Jury report as a County that was pursuin g
consolidation . It was determined that San Mateo County is only attempting to consolidate it s
property rooms with cities they contract with and they have no plans to consolidate with othe r
agencies . On the surface this appears to be a logical plan, however the Sheriff and the local Polic e
Chiefs determined that this idea would result in significant costs and logistical operationa l
difficulties for cities and the County . The Chiefs and Sheriff will continue to look for opportunitie s
to collaborate on evidence disposal and evaluate the possibility of the consolidation of the long ter m
C4-2
storage of refrigerated evidence items .
FISCAL IMPAC T
The fiscal impact to continue or implement recommendations is negligible and will be containe d
within the existing Police Department budget .
ALTERNATIVE S
Do not adopt the recommendations of the Grand Jury . This is not recommended .
ATTACHMENT S
1.2011-2012 Grand Jury Repor t
2.Property/Evidence Audit Memorandu m
3.Response letter to Presiding Judge Barry T . LaBarbera
T :\Council Agenda Reports\2012\2012-08-07\Response to Grand Jury re Evidence and Property Storage
C4-3
GRAND JURY
June 5, 201 2
CONFIDENTIAL
Mayor Jan Howell Mar x
City of San Luis Obisp o
990 Palm St
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
Dear Mayor Howell Marx and Council :
The San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury has completed the attached report titled "A Vital
Function of the Judicial System : Law Enforcement Property and Evidence Rooms ."Thi s
copy of the report is being provided to you two days in advance of its public release,as require d
by California Penal Code §933 .05 (f), which states :
A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury
report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release an d
after the approval of the presiding judge . No officer, agency, department, or governin g
body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public
release of the final report.
Please check the last page of text of the report for the timing of your response, if any, as require d
by the Penal Code . Sections 933 through 933 .05 of the Penal Code are attached for you r
reference.
Please keep in mind that this report must be kept confidential until its public release by th e
Grand Jury .
Norman A . Baxter, Foreperson
2011-2012 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jur y
Enclosure s
NAB :sm
PHONE : (805) 781-5188 • F,9x: (805) 781-115 6
P.O. Box 4910 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 C4-4
www.slocourts .net
C4-5 .
California Penal Cod e
933 . (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of th e
superior court a final report of its findings and recommendation s
that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal o r
calendar year . Final reports on any appropriate subject may b e
submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any tim e
during the term of service of a grand jury.A final report may b e
submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, o r
departments, including the county board of supervisors, whe n
applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is i n
compliance with this title . For 45 days after the end of the term ,
the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonabl e
notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report .
(b)One copy of each final report, together with the responses
thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed o n
file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office o f
the clerk . The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of th e
report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain tha t
report and all responses in perpetuity .
(c)No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a fina l
report on the operations of any public agency subject to it s
reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shal l
comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the finding s
and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of th e
governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head fo r
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914 .1
shall comment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superio r
court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, o n
the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under th e
control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls .
In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the finding s
and recommendations . All of these comments and reports shal l
forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior cour t
who impaneled the grand jury . A copy of all responses to grand jur y
reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agenc y
and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, an d
shall remain on file in those offices . One copy shall be placed o n
file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the
control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall b e
maintained for a minimum of five years .
(d)As used in this section "agency" includes a department .
933 .05 .(a)For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as t o
each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shal l
indicate one of the following :
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding .
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding ,
in which case the response shall specify the portion of the findin g
that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons
therefor .
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to eac h
grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shal l
report one of the following actions :
(1)The recommendation has been implemented, with a summar y
regarding the implemented action .
(2)The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will b e
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation .
(3)The recommendation requires further analysis, with a n
explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, an d
a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by th e
officer or head of the agency or department being investigated o r
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency whe n
applicable . This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date
of publication of the grand jury report.
(4)The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor .
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jur y
addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency o r
department headed by an elected officer, both the agency o r
department head and the board of supervisors shall respond i f
requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board o f
supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters
over which it has some decisionmaking authority . The response of th e
elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of th e
findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or
department .
(d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to com e
before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the
findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person o r
entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to thei r
release .
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the
subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless th e
court, either on its own determination or upon request of th e
foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental .
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy o f
the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person o r
entity two working days prior to its public release and after th e
approval of the presiding judge . No officer, agency, department, o r
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of th e
report prior to the public release of the final report .
C4-7
A VITAL FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM :
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE ROOM S
SUMMARY
The proper collection and retention of evidence is a foundational element of our judicial system .
While most commonly attributed to the prosecution of criminal acts, it can also be of vita l
importance in the exoneration of the innocent . The results of the Grand Jury's review o f
management and control of property and evidence rooms in law enforcement agencies in San
Luis Obispo County varied widely . Some agencies allocated the staff and budget resource s
needed to meet compliance, while others were not in compliance with their policies and
acknowledged that improvements were needed .
ORIGI N
The 2011-2012 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury decided to examine all law enforcemen t
agency property and evidence rooms within the county to determine compliance wit h
recommended policies of recognized property/evidence organizations, as well as with their ow n
internal policies .'
METHO D
In order to determine whether the law enforcement agencies in San Luis Obispo County ar e
following the proper procedures for the security and control of property and evidence, the Gran d
Jury :
The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction regarding state agencies, CHP and Cal Poly State University .
Page 1
-C4-8
•Requested that agencies complete selected sections of the Property & Evidence Syste m
Audit Guide written by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST)2
•Consulted with a representative of POST regarding available training/certification s
•Interviewed a consultant who specializes in the evaluation of property/evidence room s
throughout Californi a
•Reviewed Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)3
Property and Control Standards
•Reviewed International Association for Property and Evidence (IAPE)4 audit policies
•Reviewed each agency's internal policies and procedures related to property an d
evidence room functions and audit s
•Conducted on-site inspections of each agency's property and evidence room using th e
POST audit and safety policie s
•Conducted interviews with the designated property and evidence room representativ e
from each agency
2 POST: The State Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) was established in 1959 to se t
minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement .
3 CALEA : A national Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc . created in 1979 as a
credentialing authority . The purpose of this national accreditation program is to improve the delivery of publi c
safety services, primarily by : maintaining a body of standards covering a wide range of up-to-date public safety
initiatives ; establishing and administering an accreditation process ; and recognizing professional excellence .
' TAPE : International Property and Evidence Association is a non-profit organization offering training, certificatio n
and resources pertaining to all aspects of the handling, storage, maintenance, and disposal of law enforcement hel d
property and evidence .
Page 2
C4-9
NARRATIV E
This report first discusses general property/evidence room management practices and the n
reviews the results of the Grand Jury's inspection of each agency's property/evidence room .
Property/evidence rooms store not only evidence from crimes but also found property, propert y
for safekeeping, contraband, and property for destruction . Evidence must be collected, package d
and properly stored . Often referred to as the "chain of evidence," documentation is necessary t o
show where the evidence is located, who located the evidence and every person who comes i n
possession of the evidence, from the initial collection through the judicial process . Ultimately ,
when the item is no longer of evidentiary value, it is returned to its owner, sold at auction o r
destroyed.
Property/Evidence Room Managemen t
Audits and inventories should be conducted to ensure the continuity of the custody of propert y
and evidence. POST's Property and Evidence System Audit Guide,states "It is the responsibility
of management to see that a sound system of internal control is developed and implemented . "5
The reason for periodic audits and inventories is "Audits and inventories, on an ongoing basis ,
will enhance the safekeeping of property and evidence and minimize mismanagement which ca n
easily lead to court cases not being filed, loss of public confidence (and that of collateral criminal
justice system agencies), personnel problems, litigation, and possible financial loss ."6
As stated in the Audit Guide,"An inspection is conducted to determine whether :
•the property/evidence room is clean and orderly ;
•the integrity of the property and evidence is being maintained ;
•departmental provisions and polices are being followed ;
•property/evidence is being protected from damage or deterioration ;
Property & Evidence System Audit Guide, p .Intro,V .
6 Ibid., p . Intro, IV .
Page 3
C4-10
•employee health and safety is protected ;
•property/evidence accountability procedures are being used ; and
•property having no further value as evidence is being promptly disposed."
More than 600 agencies statewide participate in the POST Program and are eligible to receiv e
the Commission's services and benefits, which include training programs and managemen t
counseling through its Management Counseling Services Bureau (MCB). All law enforcement
agencies in San Luis Obispo County, with the exception of Pismo Beach, adhere to the policie s
and procedures of POST . Pismo Beach is the only agency accredited by CALEA . However,
since POST and CALEA are similar in nature, Pismo Beach effectively follows POS T
guidelines .
The Grand Jury's review of each agency's policies relating to property/evidence roo m
management revealed that all agencies in the county have adopted or are in final draft review o f
policies provided by Lexipol, LLC, a provider of risk management resources for public safet y
organizations . The company uses a unique, web-based development system with an integrate d
training component . The Lexipol management system has aided law enforcement, custody an d
fire agencies in reducing litigation risk, while providing clear and concise policy guidance t o
public safety organizations and their employees . The Lexipol policy regarding evidence roo m
inspections states :
804.8Inspections of the-Evidence Roo m
(a)On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspectio n
of the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policie s
and procedures .
(b)Unannounced inspections of evidence storage areas shall be conducted annually a s
directed by the [Designated Officer].
(c)An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a
[Designated Officer] not routinely or directly connected with evidence control .
(d)Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, a n
inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated to th e
Page 4
C4-11
property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence/property i s
accounted for .
The Grand Jury found that management practices within agencies vary widely . Some comply
with their policies, others do not . Audits and inventories in some agencies are far from routine ,
while others exercise strong management practices in this area . To their credit, some agencie s
recognized the need to address deficiencies prior to the Grand Jury inspections . Other agencies
have made or are planning changes as a result of the Grand Jury's inquiries into the managemen t
practices of their property/evidence rooms .
Staffing and Trainin g
It is of vital importance that each Property/Evidence Technician effectively manages th e
property/evidence room function to maintain the highest standards . Each law enforcement
agency in San Luis Obispo County operates its own property/evidence room and, depending o n
staffing, incurs considerable expense to conform to its own polices . Based on informatio n
provided by the agencies (with the exception of Paso Robles which was unable to provide thi s
information), the yearly salary and benefit expenditures for the property/evidence room functio n
in county law enforcement agencies total nearly $700,000 .
The Grand Jury learned through its investigation that San Mateo County is considerin g
consolidating individual police property/evidence rooms into one central evidence room .
Consolidation could possibly increase the efficiency of operations and reduce costs .
To ensure proper operation, each Property/Evidence Technician should receive ongoing trainin g
to remain current with evidence case law and new procedures/policies . Most personnel assigne d
to the property/evidence rooms within the county have had some training either through CAP E
(California Association for Property and Evidence)7 or POST.
7 CAPE was formed to promote professionalism in property and evidence gathering, processing and retention .
Emphasis is placed on information sharing, training and support .
Page 5
C4-12
POST offers a single course in Property and Evidence and has no certification program fo r
property and evidence . It does, however, provide management guides, such as the Property &
Evidence System Audit Guide referenced in this report. The guides are excellent and allow
agencies to conduct a self-assessment of their property/evidence management practices .
Tracking and Inventory
In each agency, documentation of all property/evidence is computer-controlled . The software
provides a detailed custody history from the receipt of the item through release or disposal . Al l
property/evidence is labeled with a bar code generated from the evidence tracking software . By
scanning the bar code, all information relevant to the evidence, such as case number, item
number, type of property, date, officer name, and description of the item, can be examined .
All agencies in the county utilize the PsNet software with the exception of the San Luis Obisp o
Police Department, which uses Spillman software .8
urging/Disposal Proces s
Managing a property/evidence room is a formidable task . Each agency has a limited amount o f
space and staff and management does not know from day-to-day how much evidence may awai t
processing by the Property/Evidence Technician . Certain evidence, such as that from a
homicide, is kept indefinitely, while other evidence must be kept under refrigeration, sometime s
for years, depending on the case . Other evidence may be discarded after the statute of limitation s
has elapsed . For certain offenses that have been referred to the District Attorney's Office fo r
prosecution, an order must be issued prior to the return/disposal of evidence . Depending on the
nature of the offense, if the conviction is appealed, evidence may be held for years after a
conviction. The purge process can be complicated and time-consuming ,
During the Grand Jury interviews, several agencies reported a delay in obtaining destructio n
authorization from the District Attorney's Office for evidence held in their property/evidenc e
8 PsNet and Spillman: Public safety software covering areas of dispatch, records management, mobile digita l
communications, and web-based applications .
Page 6
E4-13
rooms . The primary concern was storing marijuana occupied excessive space in thei r
property/evidence rooms and requests for disposal were not processed in a timely fashion .
During its inspection of the Sheriff's Department, the Grand Jury also viewed carts of evidenc e
(not marijuana) waiting for destruction authorization .
The Grand Jury reviewed the topic of evidence destruction with a representative from the District
Attorney's Office and found that it does not have a formal policy/procedure governing th e
purging/disposal of evidence . The Grand Jury found that other counties do have forma l
policies/guidelines that concisely set out purging/disposal procedures . As an example, a copy o f
Butte County's policy is attached as Appendix A . Another guideline was developed in Sant a
Clara County,9 but it was not included as an appendix due to its length (64 pages).
The District Attorney's Office provides each agency with monthly Agency Case Dispositio n
Reports . It is incumbent upon each agency, with some exceptions, to review the disposition
reports to determine if evidence may be destroyed .
The process to determine if evidence can properly be destroyed is complex .If each case is no t
reviewed properly,prosecution or exoneration of a person may be jeopardized in the event tha t
evidence is improperly destroyed . While not all-inclusive, some of the criteria to be considere d
for disposal of evidence are :
• Statute of limitation s
Post convictio n
a.Plea or .no contest
b.Convicted by Jur y
c.Murder case (187 Penal Code) and life sentence case s
Post dismissal/cases not file d
a. Dismissed due to lack of evidence or interest of justice
DNA evidence, required length of evidence retentio n
9 Santa Clara Regional Association for Property and Evidence (SCRAPE )
Page 7 C4-14
• Sexually Violent Predators, required length of evidence retentio n
•Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abuse (Evidence Code 1109), length of retentio n
•Drug Diversion Cases
• Search Warrant evidence (1136 Penal Code)
•Weapons Destruction Order (12028 Penal Code )
• Narcotics Destruction Order (11367,11473,11473 .5 Health & Safety Code )
The District Attorney's Office is in the process of establishing Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) with local jurisdictions regarding medical marijuana held as evidence.Once agreement
is reached, property/evidence technicians will have guidance regarding the retention, releas e
and/or disposal of medical marijuana only .
Some purged items have monetary value and are eligible for auction . All agencies in the count y
use a service called propertyroom .com . This service collects items of value and performs the
auction in accordance with Civil Code Section 2080 et a1 .10 A percentage of the sale is returne d
to the jurisdictions . Contraband, drugs, guns, and hazardous materials are not auctioned . They
are transported to specific disposal sites where law enforcement personnel witness thei r
destruction .
The Grand Jury calculated a purge rate for each agency by comparing the number of items taken
as evidence in the past five years to the number of items purged/disposed of during the same five
year period . A higher percentage reflects a more efficient operation and use of space . Purge rate s
ranged from 20% to 87%.
The following pages summarize the results of the Grand Jury's inspections of the individua l
agencies .
10 California Civil Code Section 2080 et al . provides regulations for the proper care and disposition of foun d
property.
Page 8
C4-15
Arroyo Grande Police Departmen t
Facility :The Arroyo Grande property/evidence room is approximately 247 square feet and
contained 3,211 items of evidence (near capacity) at the time the POST audit form wa s
completed. The Support Services Technician indicated that an additional 150 square feet woul d
be beneficial . Personnel access to the room is limited . The Grand Jury found that the item s
inside the caged, secure area appeared to be packaged properly and were stored in an orderl y
fashion.
Staffing :The Support Services Technician has primary control and two other supervisor y
personnel have authorized access . The Support Services Technician also performs other dutie s
in the agency not related to property/evidence . He estimated approximately 30 hours per wee k
are allocated to the property/evidence function . Based on salary information provided to th e
Grand Jury,annualized salary with benefits (prorated to 30 hours per week) totals $77,922 .
Purging/Disposal :In view of Arroyo Grande's limited space, the purging or disposal of evidenc e
is critical to managing the property/evidence room . In the past five years, a total of 5,234 item s
of evidence were accepted into property/evidence . During the same time period, 1,042 item s
were purged/disposed of. The purge rate of 20% was the lowest in the county .
Audits/Inventories :The Arroyo Grande Police Department is not in compliance with their state d
Lexipol policies :
• An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Divisio n
Commander (as appointed by the Chief of Police) not routinely or directly connecte d
with evidence control .
o The last inventory was conducted two years ago .
• Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, a n
inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated to th e
property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence property i s
accounted for
Page 9
C4-16
o The Evidence Technician has been in that assignment for approximately thre e
years and no inventory was conducted at the time of his initial assignment .
SafetyPolicies:The Grand Jury found that the Arroyo Grande Police Department was i n
compliance with safety policies with the exception of the following :
•No ventilation system exists to outside air, required for drug/narcotics storage "
• Appropriate storage containers for flammables are not explosion-proof (storage area fo r
flammables islocated outside )
•Storage area for flammables is not appropriately ventilate d
•Safety manuals are not provided to employee s
•No emergency evacuation plan is establishe d
Atascadero Police Departmen t
The Atascadero Police Department's property/evidence room is excellent in both managemen t
and day-to-day operation . Over the past several years, and during several police administrations ,
there has been a commitment to continued improvement in the operation of th e
property/evidence function . It is a model for other agencies to follow .
In 2005, the department began auditing and improving its property/evidence room . The
Atascadero Police Department is the only agency in the county which contracts with an outsid e
consultant to audit its property/evidence room . The department implemented the consultant's
recommendations and another audit was authorized in 2008 . The 2008 audit set forth additiona l
recommendations that were also implemented . The consultant's last audit was conducted in Jun e
2010 and the agency received the highest rating, "MEETS STANDARDS++." The consultant
commented in his report that in over 60 performance audits he has conducted over 12 years,no
other agency has been rated so highly . Consequently, the consultant rates the Atascadero Polic e
Department in the top 10-15% of property/evidence rooms in California .
H A requirement of POST Evidence Management Guide 3-3, 66261 .4 CCR .
Page 10
C4-17
Facility :At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the 368 square foot property/evidence room
was neat and orderly, and examined evidence appeared to be packaged properly . Data is backed-
up and access to the system is limited to authorized police administrators . The evidence area i s
secure and only the Property/Evidence Specialist has primary access . The Grand Jury members
were required to sign an entry log prior to entering the secure area, an excellent securit y
procedure .The size of the property/evidence area is adequate to meet the needs of the agency .
Staffing :Atascadero has one Property/Evidence Specialist assigned to the property/evidenc e
room . Additional duties include crime scene investigation . The Specialist has attended trainin g
from CAPE, has had five years of in-house training, and additional basic and advanced crim e
scene investigation training . The position is full-time and total compensation, including benefits ,
is $92,307 .
Purging/Disposal :At the time the audit survey was completed, there were 4,154 items in
property/evidence . In the past five years, 22,035 items of property/evidence were logged into th e
property/evidence room and, during that same period, 19,224 were purged/disposed of . The
purge rate is outstanding at 87%.
Audits/Inventories :Atascadero Police Department will be adopting the Lexipol policy . At the
time of the Grand Jury inspection, the policy was in "draft" form and had not yet been adopted .
At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the department was in compliance with its existing
policy and (as indicated in the consultant's report) it is also in compliance with the followin g
policies: CALEA Property and Control Standards, CAPE, TAPE, California POST, and IAC P
guidelines (International Association of Chiefs of Police).
SafetyPolicies:Atascadero Police Department complies with nearly all the safety guidelines a s
outlined in the POST audit . Two exceptions were noted in their survey response :
• No appropriate explosion-proof containers are availabl e
• A lack of appropriate safety signage
Page 11
C4-18
Grover Beach Police Departmen t
Facility :The Grover Beach Police Department property/evidence room is neat and orderly,
containing approximately 4,400 items . The room is adequate but is close to or at capacity . Th e
square footage was not provided . The evidence examined by the Grand Jury members wa s
packaged properly, stored neatly and bar coded . The room is secure and the Property Room
Technician and the Division Lieutenant are the only people allowed access . An access log i s
maintained for any other people requesting access to the controlled area . The Grand Jury learne d
during interviews that the department has tentative plans to convert a larger office space into th e
property/evidence room because the current evidence room does not have required ventilatio n
and the proposed space is ventilated .
Staffing :Currently, there is one Property/Evidence Technician who is also assigned to th e
Records Division. The Technician has received POST training . The time spent solely for th e
property/evidence function is estimated at 600 hours per year . The pro-rated salary, plu s
benefits, for the Property/Evidence Technician totals $19,332 per year .
Purging/Disposal :In view of the space constraints, purging/disposal of property/evidence i s
important in maintaining an orderly property/evidence room . In the past five years, 7,835 item s
of evidence were placed into evidence and 2,618 items were purged/disposed of during that same
period . The purge rate is 33%.
Audits/Inventories :The Grand Jury learned through interviews that, prior to 2009, no purging o r
audits had been conducted for at least 18 to 20 years . However, the administration of th e
department as well as management of the property/evidence room has improved in the past three
years . In April 2011, the Grover Beach Police Department adopted the Lexipol policies fo r
property/evidence room procedures as well as for other functions of the agency . The policy
exceptions to property/evidence inspections/audits are :
On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection o f
the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policie s
and procedures .
Page 12
C4-19
o The Division Lieutenant estimated that monthly inspections occur 75% of the
time .
•An annual audit of evidence held by the department shall be conducted by a Divisio n
Lieutenant (as appointed by the Chief of Police) who is not routinely or directl y
connected with evidence control .
A full audit of the property/evidence room is currently underway and th e
estimated completion date is April 2012 . The Division Lieutenant who i s
responsible for evidence control is conducting the audit . Technically, the othe r
Division Lieutenant, who is not connected with evidence control, should conduc t
the audit. There is no record of any previously conducted audits .
•Whenever a change is made in personnel who have access to the evidence room, a n
inventory of all evidence/property shall be made by an individual(s) not associated wit h
the property room or function to ensure that records are correct and all evidence propert y
is accounted for.
o The last personnel change occurred in 2009 . A full audit is now in progress .
Safety Policies :The Grand Jury inspection revealed the following safety issues :
•Respirators are not supplied .
• The property/evidence room is not ventilated .
Morro Bay Police Departmen t
Facility:The Morro Bay Police Department property/evidence room is limited in size wit h
approximately 230 square feet . Additional storage for large items, such as bicycles, is locate d
off-site . The room is neat and orderly, and the evidence inspected was packaged properly .
Security was adequate ; no entry log is maintained to document who enters the secure are a
beyond the property/evidence technician. There have been recent improvements to th e
property/evidence room . Grant funds were used to purchase new evidence lockers that include a
refrigerated locker for perishable evidence . Once removed from the refrigerated evidence locker ,
items are placed in a larger refrigerator inside the evidence room for long-term storage .
Page 13
C4-20
Staffing:The recently filled Property/Evidence Technician position had been vacant since 2009 .
The new position is part-time, without benefits, and is funded by a yearly grant in the amount o f
$17,000 . The agency has provided in-house training to the Property/Evidence Technician and
further training is being considered through CAPE .
Purging/Disposal :The disposal or purge rate of evidence for the past five years exceeds th e
amount taken in during the same five-year period. Evidence had not been purged in many years ,
thus 4,099 items were purged and 2,217 were taken in during the same period . Recognizing that
the evidence room was disorganized, the Chief of Police authorized a full audit/inventory i n
2009 and property/evidence no longer of significance was purged or disposed of . Currently ,
there are 2,217 items of evidence in the property/evidence areas and items are purged whe n
authorized by either the District Attorney's Office or by department policy .
Audits/Inventories :The Morro Bay Police Department inspection practice exceeds the Lexipo l
policy . The Grand Jury was advised that the Police Commander, who is not affiliated with th e
property/evidence function, conducts monthly inspections . Now, monthly inspections by th e
Commander focus on adherence to policies, unannounced inspections and monthly audits in lie u
of annual audits . The Support Services Manager completed the last full audit/inventory i n
March 2009 due to a personnel change . Another audit/inventory is planned with the recen t
hiring of the new, part-time Property/Evidence Technician .
Safety Policies :Appropriate safety procedures are in place . The property/evidence room is -
ventilated and policies are in place for the handling of biohazards, hazardous and flammabl e
items . The Grand Jury noted only one exception :
• Respirators are not provided for the evidence technicia n
Paso Robles Police Departmen t
Facility :The Paso Robles PoliceDepartment is located in a relatively new building (2003) that i s
also the headquarters for the Department of Emergency Services . The main property/evidenc e
room is located inside the main building . At the time the agency completed the audit form fo r
Page 14
C4-21
the Grand Jury, a total of 10,570 items were located in the main area as well as in secondar y
secure, storage areas . The combined property/evidence area totals 898 square feet .
While the main evidence area is spacious, items requiring additional security (guns, money an d
drugs) are located in a separate secure room. Those items were not stored in an orderly fashion.
Guns, money and drugs were piled on top of each other ; some guns were stored in evidenc e
boxes while others, not boxed, were lying on shelves . Additional space for these items is neede d
to permit orderly storage .
Staffing:A Supervising Lieutenant and two detectives currently staff the property/evidenc e
room . A previous full-time dedicated position was eliminated from the budget . The staff
typically rotates every two to four years . At the time of the Grand Jury inspection, the plan wa s
to train two dispatchers to staff the evidence room, in addition to the Supervising Lieutenant an d
two detectives, for a total of five personnel . The agency was unable to provide labor expens e
figures for the property/evidence room operation .
Purring/Disposal :The agency uses PsNet tracking software . Unfortunately, data entry errors
over a period of time listed items checked out as "Disposed" evidence when in fact they wer e
checked out for court, lab analysis or other valid reasons . The disposition of "Disposed"
evidence items was not changed when the item(s) was returned to the property/evidence room .
Due to this property/evidence documentation tracking error, the Supervising Lieutenant and tw o
detectives planned a full audit of every item beginning in February 2012 . The full inventory wa s
expected to take approximately one month to complete .
In view of the PsNet entry error, the purge rate could not be calculated . Of the 10,570 items at
the time of survey, 7,916 were taken into evidence in the past five years . Because the number o f
items purged/disposed of was not available, the purge rate could not be calculated .
Audits/Inventories :The Paso Robles Police Department is in partial compliance with its Lexipo l
policy pertaining to evidence room inspections :
Page 15 C4-22
•On a monthly basis, the supervisor of the evidence custodian shall make an inspection o f
the evidence storage facilities and practices to ensure adherence to appropriate policie s
and procedure s
o According to the Supervising Lieutenant, a few evidence items are checke d
monthly on a random basi s
The department is not in compliance with its remaining policies . The last partial inventory wa s
completed in June 2011 and pertained to drug evidence only . Prior to that date, an inventory o f
guns, money and drugs was conducted in 2009 . The last full inventory was conducted in 2003 .
A full audit is planned for 2012 .
Safety Policies :With regard to health and safety for evidence room personnel, the agency is i n
compliance with the policy guidelines set forth in the POST audit form, with only tw o
exceptions :
•Ammunition/black powder is not being stored separately from other propert y
+Explosion-proof storage containers are not provide d
Pismo Beach Police Departmen t
The Pismo Beach Police Department is the only agency in the county to receive CALE A
accreditation, a process that took several years . After meeting all CALEA proofs of compliance ,
the department became an accredited agency in 2007 . The administration .and staff are to b e
commended for their dedication in obtaining the accreditation .
Facility :The property/evidence room is located inside the police department, and is clean an d
well-organized . The 445 square foot area is secure and only the primary Property/Evidenc e
Technician has routine access . All others requesting access must sign the entry log, document
their purpose, and be escorted by the technician or the supervisor of the property/evidence room .
During the Grand Jury's inspection, inspected evidence was properly packaged and the labeling
was consistent with standard practices .
Page 16
C4-23
Staffing :The Property/Evidence Room Technician has been employed by the agency for the pas t
nine years and maintains a neat and well-organized evidence room . The technician is also the
president of the local property/evidence room association, CAPE. The technician's dedication t o
her position, as well as promotion of the professionalism of the property/evidence room functio n
throughout the county, is to be commended . The annual expense (salary and benefits) for th e
full-time Property/Evidence Room Technician totals $82,659 .
Purging/Disposal :At the time the audit form was completed, there were approximately 11,06 5
items of evidence . In the past five years,5,984 items were entered into evidence and 2,586 wer e
purged/disposed of. The purge rate is 43%.
Audits/Inventories :In addition to using CALEA standards regarding property and evidenc e
control, Pismo Beach relies on Lexipol policies in other areas of operation . CALEA and Lexipo l
policies are very similar in form and content . The CALEA standard for inspections/audit s
states :12
84.1 .6 In order to maintain a high degree of evidentiary integrity over agency-controlle d
property and evidence, the following documented inspections, inventory, and audits shal l
be completed :
An inspection to determine adherence to procedures used for the control of propert y
is conducted semi-annually by the person responsible for the property and evidenc e
control function or his/her designee ;
b.An inventory of property occurs whenever the property and evidence custodian i s
assigned to and/or transferred from the position and is conducted jointly by the newl y
designated property and evidence custodian and a designee of the CEO to ensure tha t
records are correct and property annotated ;
c.An annual audit of property and evidence held by the agency is conducted by a
supervisor not routinely or directly connected with the control of property an d
evidence ; and
12 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA)'2 Property and Control Standards
Page 17
C4-24
d . Unannounced inspections of property storage areas are conducted, as directed by th e
agency's CEO, at least once a year .
The Pismo Beach Police Department is in compliance with all CALEA policies . Their last
annual audit was completed in June 2011 .
Safety Policies :In view of the POST audit pertaining to safety, the following deficiencies wer e
found :
•Respirators are not provided
•Safe storage for chemicals is not provide d
•The flammable storage area is not appropriately ventilate d
• No outside storage for flammables exists
•Designated storage containers are not explosion-proo f
San Luis Obispo Police Departmen t
The San Luis Obispo Police Department is the largest municipal police agency in the county .
The department tracks all property/evidence through Spillman software . If the system is no t
accessible, the Evidence Clerk has devised a manual filing system that allows for the retrieval o f
evidence based on date . This system is unique to the San Luis Obispo Police Department and th e
Evidence Clerk should be commended for implementing a simple, logical, back-up filing system .
Facility:Due to space limitations, property/evidence is stored in several different locations . The
combined space totals 1,685 square feet . All areas are properly secured . As a result of the Gran d
Jury inspection, an entry log for escorted persons will be implemented . The evidence room areas
were neat and orderly, with the exception of hand gun storage .
Numerous hand guns were piled on a shelf, limiting the orderly removal/examination of a
particular firearm . Many agencies in the county place guns in evidence boxes designed for safe
storage . It is the preference of the Evidence Clerk to be able to examine the weapon to ensur e
that it is unloaded and in safe condition prior to acceptance into the property/evidence room .
The approach is logical . However, if the agency prefers to store handguns without packaging, i t
should store them individually, in a neat and orderly manner .
Staffing :The primary control of the property/evidence room is assigned to one full-tim e
Property/Evidence Clerk who is responsible for the day-to-day operation . The Property/Evidence
Clerk has attended IAPE and CAPE training. The clerk has been in the position fo r
approximately seven years with an annual compensation (salary and benefits) reported to b e
$100,000 per year .
Purging/Disposal :There were 26,043 items in evidence at the time the audit survey wa s
completed. A total of 38,471 items were logged into evidence during the past five years an d
31,524 items were purged/disposed of during that time . The purge rate is an impressive 82%. It
is noteworthy that the San Luis Obispo Police Department donates unclaimed bicycles to at-ris k
youth.
Audit/Inspections :The San Luis Obispo Police Department is in compliance with it s
audit/inspection policy . The current policy is that the Property/Evidence Technician, assisted b y
the Investigation Sergeant and Investigation Lieutenant, conducts an audit every six months .
Audits were conducted in March and October 2011 . The audits focused on three areas : firearms,
money and drug/narcotics . Per their policy, all firearms and money are examined during th e
audits,as well as forty randomly selected narcotics cases and forty random pieces of evidence .
Audited items are checked for proper sealing, packaging and identification . A report of th e
findings is forwarded to the Chief of Police, noting any discrepancies . A full inventory of ever y
item is scheduled for March 2012 .
The San Luis Obispo Police Department is in the process of changing its department polices ,
and will adopt the Lexipol standard in the near future . The department is currently reviewing
each Lexipol policy prior to acceptance and implementation . Some policies may be modified t o
best suit the needs of the agency. Once the Lexipol polices are adopted, those provision s
pertaining to evidence room inspections/audits will be followed .
Page 19
C4-26
Safety Policies :A review of the POST audit forms on safety shows that the department is in
compliance with POST standards, with one exception :
• Annual biohazard update training .
San Luis Obispo County Sheriffs Departmen t
Facility :The security of the County Sheriffs property/evidence room is adequate ; however, at
2,500 square feet, the building size is not adequate for the volume of property/evidence stored.
The property/evidence room currently contains over 75,000 items in a space that is not wel l
designed or orderly. Additionally, the surplus shelving in use does not maximize the current
space . While the evidence area is cluttered, the evidence observed was packaged properly an d
the evidence tracking software is used properly . Sheriff Ian Parkinson described the space as a
"disaster''"and he has made correcting the property/evidence room deficiencies a top priority .
Plans have been approved to move the evidence room to another site approximately twice a s
large as the current property/evidence room, with additional adjacent space available whe n
needed . Funding has been secured ; the new location is expected to be fully operational an d
compliant with policy and standards by the end of 2012 .
Staffing :The agency has two full-time, non-sworn, property technicians who are responsible fo r
the property/evidence room function. Recently, the agency added a part-time employee to assis t
in managing the high volume of evidence . The total cost of all employees to operate and
maintain the property/evidence room, including benefits,is $300,070.
Purging/Disposal :In the past five years, according to property system records, 516,284 items o f
evidence were logged into evidence ; of that number, 242,910 items were purged/disposed of .
The purge rate is 47%. The Sheriffs Department is proactive in the management of its availabl e
space, but their authority to dispose of certain types of evidence has been slowed awaitin g
L3 C .Lambert,(Top 10 Stories of 2011 : No . 10 : Parkinson Brings Changes to County Sheriffs Office .The Tribune,
December 23, 2011
Page 20
C4-27
approval by the District Attorney's Office . The Grand Jury viewed carts of evidence waitin g
approval by the District Attorney's Office some disposal requests date as far back as 2009 .
Audit/Inspections :The Sheriff's Department is not in compliance with its Lexipol policies o n
audit procedures. The last audit was four years ago .
Safety Policies:According to the POST audit forms completed by the department, only minimal
safety equipment is supplied (respirators, gloves and protective clothing). Specific deficiencie s
include :
•No safety manual s
• Annual safety training does not take plac e
•Emergency evacuation plans do not exis t
Page 21
C4-28
CONCLUSIO N
All agencies use computerized inventory methodology, which, when managed correctly ,
provides excellent tracking and control of property and evidence .
All agencies have adopted, or are about to adopt, the Lexipol property/evidence room polices fo r
audits and inspections . The Lexipol polices are fundamentally consistent with those of othe r
recognized organizations, such as IAPE, CALEA and POST . While all agencies have simila r
policies, not all agencies comply with their stated policies .
There are several independent consulting firms that perform property/evidence room audits on a
contract basis . Such firms provide an unbiased perspective on the management and operation of
law enforcement agency property/evidence rooms . The City of Atascadero has utilized such a n
independent auditor for many years and, as a result, the operation and maintenance of its
property/evidence room has continuously improved .
Some county agencies could benefit from POST management counseling,which can b e
requested by any agency . The POST Management Counseling Services Bureau (MCB) provide s
many services to local law enforcement agencies to improve the quality of police services at eac h
level of the organization . The authority to provide counseling is pursuant to California Pena l
Code Section, 13513 .14 - Local agencies in San Luis Obispo County can request managemen t
counseling services from POST related to the operation of Property/Evidence rooms .Fo r
example, POST conducted an exhaustive property/evidence room audit in 2006 for the Berkeley
Police Department after the internal theft of drugs .l s
There are several professional organizations that offer standards and training, and promote th e
proper operation of property/evidence rooms . TAPE,for example, offers a certification . POS T
'California Penal Code section, 13513 : Upon the request of a local jurisdiction, the commission shall provide a
counseling service to such local jurisdiction for the purpose of improving the administration, management o r
operations of a police agency and may aid such jurisdiction in implementing improved practices and techniques .
1 City of Berkeley, Policy Review Commission Police Report, Evidence of Theft within the Berkeley Police
Department, October 12, 2007 .
Page 22
C4-29
offers only guidelines . Given the numerous certificate programs offered by POST, the Gran d
Jury was surprised to learn that POST does not offer a certificate program for Property/Evidenc e
Technicians .
In the purging process, all agencies in the county use propertyroom .com for the auctioning o f
eligible items . There is one notable exception to this practice . San Luis Obispo Polic e
Department donates its bicycles to the Sheriff's Department for repair prior to being donated t o
their juvenile delinquency program . This practice benefits the community by providing project s
for inmates, as well as benefiting at-risk youth .
Several agencies commented that destruction requests to the District Attorney's Office are no t
processed promptly and the delay reduces available storage space . The Sheriff's Department ,
for example, has requests dating as far back as 2009 that have had no response . The delay ha s
adversely affected their ability to properly manage the property/evidence room . The primary
complaint was that they were not receiving disposal authorization for marijuana stored at thei r
facilities .
There is a variety of management practices of property/evidence rooms within San Luis Obisp o
County and property/evidence retention/disposal requirements are complex . However, the county
lacks a standardized policy/procedure for all law enforcement agencies in the county .
At present, county law enforcement agencies spend approximately $700,000 fo r
property/evidence room employee salaries and benefits . Supervision, material, transportation ,
and facility costs increase this number and are difficult to quantify . There may be significan t
cost savings available if the multiple property/evidence rooms in the county were consolidate d
into one.
Page 23
C4-30
FINDING S
1.The Police Departments of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Paso Robles, and the Sheriff s
Department are not in full compliance with their respective policies pertaining to evidenc e
room inspections .
2.The Police Departments of Atascadero, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, and the City of San Lui s
Obispo are in compliance with their respective policies pertaining to evidence roo m
inspections .
3.The Grover Beach Police Department is currently conducting a full inventory of its evidenc e
room.
4.Morro Bay Police Department advised that it will complete a full inventory of its evidenc e
room with the hiring of a new Property/Evidence Technician .
5.Paso Robles Police Department was unable to advise the number of evidence items purge d
due to a data entry error that occurred routinely over a period of time .
6.Paso Robles Police Department has advised the Grand Jury that it will complete a ful l
inventory within the year .
7.Paso Robles Police Department does not store guns, money and drugs in a neat and orderl y
manner.
8.In the Paso Robles Police Department, five people have access to the evidence room and staf f
rotates every two to four years .
9.Arroyo Grande Police Department and the Grover Beach Police Department do not hav e
ventilated property/evidence rooms for storage of drugs/narcotics .
10.The San Luis Obispo Police Department does not store handguns in a neat and orderl y
manner.
11.The San Luis Obispo Police Department is planning a full inventory within the year .
12.The Sheriffs Department has advised that it will move its property/evidence room operatio n
to a new facility .
13.The District Attorney's office does not have formal, written property/evidence retentio n
policies .
14.The District Attorney's Office is currently establishing a Memorandum of Understandin g
with each jurisdiction regarding the retention/destruction of medical marijuana .
Page 24
C4-31
15 . As a result of the Grand Jury audit, changes are already being made to improve th e
property/evidence room function in some of the law enforcement agencies in the county .
RECOMMENDATION S
1.All law enforcement agencies in the County should adhere to their respective policie s
relating to property/evidence room inspections .
2.The Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach Police Departments should ventilate their evidenc e
rooms containing drugs/narcotics .
3 The Paso Robles Police Department should maintain their property/evidence room in a nea t
and orderly manner .
4.The Paso Robles Police Depai hnent should consider using the services of POST or a n
independent consulting service to conduct a full review of its property/evidence roo m
function.
5.To reduce audit-related personnel costs, the Paso Robles Police Department should conside r
staffing the property/evidence room with a single dedicated Property/Evidence Technician .
6.The San Luis Obispo Police Department should store handguns in a safe, neat and orderl y
manner.
7.The District Attorney's Office should develop a formal property retention policy that wil l
assist each law enforcement agency with the proper retention/destruction of propert y
evidence.
8.The District Attorney's Office should establish a liaison between its office and each law
enforcement jurisdiction to regularly review existing and new property/evidence laws an d
procedures .
9.All personnel assigned to property/evidence rooms in the county should continue thei r
training and/or update their knowledge through professional organizations . It is also highly
recommended that they join the county chapter of CAPE .
10.The Grand Jury encourages the county law enforcement agencies to utilize the services o f
either POST for management assistance or a qualified consultant specializing i n
property/evidence room management .
Page 25
C4-32
11.The following police departments shall submit evidence of a full property/evidence roo m
audit to the Grand Jury : Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles,San Lui s
Obispo,and the Sheriffs Department .
12.The Grand Jury recommends that the police chiefs and County Sheriff explore the feasibilit y
of a county-wide property/evidence room consolidation, possibly under a joint power s
agreement.
13.While the Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction over a state agency, it would highly
recommend that the California POST Commission consider a statewide certification progra m
for Property/Evidence Technicians that establishes minimum training, education and
experience requirements .
Page 26
C4-33
COMMENDATION S
The Atascadero Police Department is to be commended for its continued commitment t o
improving the operation and management of its property/evidence room . Since 2005, th e
department has retained the services of an independent property/evidence room consultant .
Based on the consultant's recommendations and follow-up inspections in 2008 and 2010 ,
continued improvements were made resulting in Atascadero being rated one of the bes t
property/evidence rooms in California . The current Property/Evidence Technician, Rya n
Enfantino, as well as his predecessors, are to be commended .
The Pismo Beach Police Department has demonstrated its support and dedication to th e
property/evidence room function through its CALEA certification and adherence to POS T
standards. Specifically, Property/Evidence Technician Rachelle LaPan is to be commended for
her management of the property/evidence room and her contribution as President of the loca l
CAPE chapter .
The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department recognized the necessity of moving it s
property/evidence room to larger facilities and reorganizing the manner in which evidence i s
stored. The move and reorganization are underway and tile new facility should be operational b y
the end of 2012 . Sheriff Ian Parkinson included the auditing of the property/evidence room as a
top priority prior to his election as Sheriff. He is to be commended for keeping his pre-electio n
promise .
Page 27
C4-34
REQUIRED RESPONSE S
The Police Department of Arroyo Grande is required to respond to Findings 1 and 9, an d
Recommendations 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge
of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 . Please provide a pape r
copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The Police Department of Atascadero is required to respond to Recommendations 1, 9 and 12 .
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superio r
Court by September 4, 2012 .Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of al l
responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The Police Department of Grover Beach is required to respond to Findings 1, 3 and 9, an d
Recommendations 1, 2, 9, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge
of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 .Please provide a paper
copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The Police Department of Morro Bay is required to respond to Finding 4 and Recommendation s
1, 9, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obisp o
County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 . Please provide a paper copy and an electroni c
version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The Police Department of Paso Robles is required to respond to Findings 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, an d
Recommendations 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presidin g
Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 .Please provide a
paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The Police Department of Pismo Beach is required to respond to Recommendations 1, 9 and 12 .
The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior
Court by September 4, 2012 .Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of al l
responses to the Grand Jury as well .
Page 28
C4-35
The Police Department of San Luis Obispo is required to respond to Findings 10 and 11, an d
Recommendations 1, 6, 9, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge o f
the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 4, 2012 .Please provide a paper cop y
and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff is required to respond to Findings 1 and 12, an d
Recommendations, 1, 9, 10, 11, and 12 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judg e
of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 6, 2012 .Please provide a paper cop y
and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney is required to respond to Findings 13 and 14, an d
Recommendations 7 and 8 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sa n
Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 6, 2012 .Please provide a paper copy and a n
electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
The mailing addresses for delivery are :
Presiding Judge Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Barry T . LaBarber a
Superior Court of California
1050 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P .O . Box 491 0
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
The e-mail address for the Grand Jury is :GrandJury@co .slo .ca.us
Page 29
C4-3 6
APPENDIX A
BUTTE COUNT Y
PROPERTY RETENTION POLIC Y
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish standard criteria for Law Enforcement Agencies wit h
regard to property retention.
POLICY
This document gives all agencies within the authority to purge all property take n
into their possession based on meeting the criteria outlined below . This was created with th e
input of all Butte County Law Enforcement Agencies, in conjunction with the Butte Count y
District Attorney's Office .
PROCEDURE
Evidence Retention Consideration s
1) Post convictio n
2) Post dismissal
3) Case not file d
4) DNA/Biological evidence
5) Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) cases
6) Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abus e
7) Juvenile case s
8) Drug diversion case s
9) Bench warrant vs . arrest warran t
10) Search warrant
11) General purge consideration s
a)Statute of limitations consideration s
b)Agency may initiat e
c)Currenc y
12) Photograph and release optio n
Attachments
1) Statute of limitations
Page 30
C4-37
2)Warrant purge criteri a
3)Return of service order (1536 PC )
4)Weapons destruction order (12028 PC )
5)Narcotics destruction order (11367, 11473, and 11473 .5 H&S)
Purgecriteri a
Absent a directive by the District Attorney, the following criteria shall apply permitting th e
purging of property or evidence.
1)Post convictio n
If case was a plea or no contest,the investigating agency can purge property as soon as the y
receive the Butte County District Attorney's Evidence Release Memo (hereinafter referred to a s
Evidence Release Memo). There is no need to hold onto the evidence any longer .
If convicted by jury,evidence shall be held for 60 days on misdemeanors and 90 days on felonies
for possible appeals . This time is based on the date of the case adjudication and is for thos e
cases in which an Evidence Release Memo is received.
In 187 PC and life sentence cases,there will not be an Evidence Release Memo sent until the (s )
is deceased or released from prison and is on parole .. If the (s) dies while in custody, thi s
information may come to either the DA or the local agency . Once this information is received, i t
is important that both are made aware of this information . Therefore, always ensure the othe r
party involved has been contacted and is aware of the status . Once the suspect has been release d
from prison or is deceased, the property can be purged . In order to check on the status of a
particular inmate, contact Chico Parole . They will be able to provide you with parol e
information or a deceased notification on your suspect .
2)Post dismissa l
The District Attorney's office shall send an Evidence Release Memo for cases that are dismisse d
due to lack of sufficient evidence or in the interest of justice . These evidence releases shall stat e
the reason for the dismissal . Once an Evidence Release Memo has been received, the propert y
section will verify the status with their case agent prior to disposal of property . The District
Attorney will not move forward with the case unless the case agent has further information .
In co-defendant cases, the first Evidence Release Memo will state the fact there is a co -
defendant . The subsequent release will state the final release of evidence .
Page 31
C4-38
3)Case not file d
The District Attorney's office shall send an Evidence Release Memo for cases that are eithe r
declined due to lack of sufficient evidence, or declined in the interest of justice . These Evidenc e
Release Memos shall state the reason of the case being declined . Once an Evidence Releas e
Memo has been received, the property section will check with their case agent prior to disposal
of property . The District Attorney will not move forward with the case unless the case agent ha s
further information .
For any cases without an arrest, all property can be purged at statute of limitations . For furthe r
information regarding statute of limitations, see Attachment 1 .
4)DNA/Biological evidenc e
DNA evidence used to convict must be maintained until the (s) is released from prison,unless
authorized by the District Attorney . The (s) has the right to have the DNA evidence retested a t
any point in time during their incarceration . However, if the proper documents have been signe d
by the (s), the (s)attorney, the DA, and the judge, all property can be purged after conviction .
This documentation would accompany any evidence release memo sent by the District Attorney .
Each agency shall be held responsible for the retention of evidence when there is a John Do e
warrant issued based on DNA . The agency shall verify status of any potential warrants prior t o
the disposal of DNA evidence at the statute of limitations .
5)Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) case s
CART interviews shall be conducted using DVD media and forwarded to the individual
agencies .
Sexual assault cases have a statute of limitations of ten (10) years . No evidence in such cases ,
unless unfounded, can be purged prior to the statute of limitations . For the retention of any DN A
evidence, refer to the DNA section of this document .
6)Domestic Violence/Elder Abuse/Child Abus e
All photos and interviews shall be maintained for a period often (10) years from the date o f
incident on all domestic violence/elder abuse/child abuse convictions .This is pursuant t o
Page 32
C4-39
California Evidence Code Section 1109 . This is due to the fact that all prior convictions of such
a crime are admissible for future cases . This allows the District Attorney to attempt to show a
pattern of this behavior for the (s) to include motive, intent, and opportunity .
All property, other than photos and interviews, may be purged once the Evidence Release Mem o
is received from the District Attorney's office .
7)Juvenile cases
The District Attorney's office will send and Evidence Release Memo on Juvenile cases based o n
case adjudication . Property may be purged upon receiving these releases .
If an Evidence Release Memo is not received, each agency may look up the case status in HOD .
Once the case shows closed in HOD, the investigating agency may purge the property .
For cases without a suspect, property may be purged based on statute of limitations (se e
Attachment 1).
8)Drug diversion cases
All evidence seized in criminal cases that result in drug diversion will be maintained until the
suspect completes their diversion process . Once diversion is successfully completed, an
Evidence Release Memo will be sent to the investigating agency . If the suspect fails to complet e
diversion, the evidence will remain active . In all narcotics cases, the evidence will be considere d
active until an evidence release memo is received by the investigating agency .
In cases in which the suspect pleads, an Evidence Release Memo will be sent prior to th e
completion of drug diversion . The evidence will no longer be needed and can be purged .
All agencies are authorized to destroy all needles/syringes taken as evidence of Business and
Professions Code Section 4140 after the seizing officer photographs (Xerox is also acceptable )
the item and identifies the same with the agency case number . Hypodermic syringes containin g
suspected controlled substances are subject to the same procedure with the addition that a portio n
of the contents should be presumptively tested for proper criminal charging . The contents ar e
then to be placed into a vacuum tube (void of preservative) and sent to the lab for analysis .
Page 33
C4-40
9)Bench warrant vs . arrest warrant
Bench warrant is issued after a person has appeared in court, but fails to show for additiona l
court appearances .
Arrest warrants are issued for persons law enforcement maintains is a (s) in a case, but has yet t o
arrest with regard to the incident .
Firearms taken in cases in which there is an arrest or bench warrant, it can be purged after on e
year on possession cases only. Law Enforcement must document and photograph the firear m
thoroughly, but can purge it as abandoned property after one year .
For purge criteria on misdemeanor cases, refer to Attachment 2 .This criteria is for those
misdemeanor cases over seven (7) years old that have gone to warrant .
10)Search warrant
All evidence taken as part of a search warrant must have a court order (1536 PC) prior to th e
return or purging of any property . If the original warrant service included a return (1536 PC )
order, the property can be released by an evidence memo issued by the District Attorney upo n
case adjudication. All property considered to be stolen/recovered will be photographed an d
released to the rightful owner, refer to Attachment 3 .
11)General purge considerations
a) Statute of limitations consideration s
Purging of property in criminal cases is sometimes based on the statute of limitations . If
there has not been an arrest on a case and there is not an outstanding warrant, purging i s
based on the statute of limitations. For the most part, the statute of limitations runs on e
(1) year on misdemeanor crimes and three (3) years on felony crimes . However, this i s
not a set standard . For clarification based on criminal code section, see Attachment 1 .
An example of crimes that do not meet this basic statute of limitations would be se x
crimes or violent crimes against person .
Page 34
C4-41
b)Agency may initiate
Individual agencies may have individual purge criteria set up for various non-criminal o r
civil cases . A list of such cases includes, but is not limited to : 27491 GC, traffic
collisions, and cases they deem are unfounded .
c)Currency
Any currency taken into the custody of local law enforcement agencies as part of a
narcotics sales case will be handled by the District Attorney-Asset Forfeiture Unit .
In embezzlement cases, the money may be returned to the victim upon case adjudication .
If the victim has filed a claim with their insurance company and received compensation ,
the money would then be released to the insurance company .
12) Photograph and release procedure
Stolen/Recovered items will be photographed and released to the (v). There is no need t o
maintain stolen/recovered property as evidence . Proper documentation (which include s
obtaining and photographing the serial numbers) and photographing of all evidence must occu r
prior to the release of any property . These photos should include the (v) with the items to b e
returned . The (v) must also be informed to maintain possession of this property until th e
criminal case is adjudicated, in case it is needed for prosecution .
Page 35
C4-42
April 2, 201 2
To :
Chief Gesel l
Via :
Captain Stale y
From :
Lieutenant Smit h
Subject :
Property and Evidence Inventor y
The current policy of the San Luis Obispo Police Department is that it will conduct a propert y
and evidence audit twice yearly . The Property/Evidence Clerk, assisted by the Investigation
Lieutenant and Sergeant, conducts these audits . The audits focus on three areas : firearms, money
and drugs/narcotics . All firearms and money are examined during the audits, in addition to fort y
randomly selected narcotics items and forty random pieces of evidence . All items are checke d
for proper sealing, packaging and identification . A memorandum is completed and sent to th e
Chief, noting any discrepancies .
On March 19, 2012 Property/Evidence Clerk Murphy, Sergeant Bledsoe and I completed a n
inventory of all property and evidence held by the San Luis Obispo Police Department .
Property/Evidence Clerk Murphy generated Spillman reports containing the item number, cas e
number, location stored and the description of the property/evidence . Each piece o f
evidence/property was visually inspected and the item number was confirmed to storag e
location. When discrepancies were discovered, the location was checked a second time to insur e
the item was not missed . If the discrepancies_ were confirmed it was documented b y
Property/Evidence Clerk Murphy for further follow-up .
At the conclusion of the audit, Property/Evidence Clerk Murphy researched all discrepancie s
documented during the Inventory . Attached to this memorandum is a list of all discrepancies ,
their current status, possible reason for discrepancy and action taken by Property/Evidence Cler k
Murphy to update the status in Spillman . Refer to the attached document for further details .
A majority of the items we were unable to locate belonged to adjudicated and inactive cases .
These evidence items had been marked to be destroyed . Once a case is completed in court and al l
appeal periods have been exhausted, the evidence is available for destruction or release . In case s
that have not gone to court, once the filing deadline is exceeded the items are available fo r
destruction or release . It is assumed that the items we were unable to locate were destroyed o r
returned to owners and the Property/Evidence Clerk failed to update Spillman as to th e
disposition of the item. A majority of the items we were unable to locate were from a tim e
period where the evidence room was managed by an employee no longer with the department . It
C4-43
is unknown what this previous employees practice was in regards to destruction/release and
documentation . The current Property/Evidence Clerk marks items in Spillman that are availabl e
for destruction . A list is then generated from Spillman of all evidence items that are available t o
be destroyed. From the list, the Property/Evidence Clerk pulls the items from the differen t
locations . The items are inspected to see if they could qualify for auction . If they do not qualify ,
the identification barcode is removed from the package and the item is destroyed . Th e
Property/Evidence Clerk then takes all the removed barcodes and scans them into Spillman .
Once scanned, all the evidence items can be marked as destroyed . Care is and will continue to
be taken to make sure all barcodes of destroyed property are properly removed and documente d
in Spillman .
Firearms Inventor y
All listed firearms were accounted for during the Inventory and no discrepancies were found .
During the Inventory firearms marked for destruction were removed from their storage location .
A total of 164 firearms were removed from evidence for destruction . On March 27, 2012 Sgt .
Bledsoe and Officer Nunez transported the weapons to Union City where they were incinerated .
Currently the San Luis Obispo Police Department has over 30,000 pieces of evidence/propert y
documented in Spillman . The majority of the discrepancies identified during the audit appeare d
to be errors related to their tracking in Spillman . It is unknown when the last inventory of al l
property/evidence was completed . Based on the current inventory I believe the San Luis Obisp o
Police Department property room is efficiently managed with the necessary checks and balance s
in place,
C4-44
August 7, 201 2
Honorable Judge Barry T . LaBarber a
Superior Court of Californi a
1050 Monterey Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 8
Honorable Judge LaBarbera ,
On August 7, 2012, the San Luis Obispo Police Department reviewed the Grand Jury's report ,
titled "A Vital Function of the Judicial System : Law Enforcement Property and Evidence
Rooms ." The Police Department concurs with most of the findings of the report submitted by th e
Grand Jury . The recommendations made by the Grand Jury highlight many of the actions that th e
Police Department is already in compliance with . These actions include adhering t o
property/evidence room policies (Grand Jury Recommendation #1), continued training for th e
property and evidence room clerk and joining the county chapter of CAPE (Grand Jury
Recommendation #9), and complete a full property/evidence room audit and submit evidence t o
the Grand Jury (Grand Jury Recommendation #11).
At the conclusion of the on-site inspection, it was found the San Luis Obispo Police Departmen t
does not store handguns in a neat and orderly manner (Grand Jury Recommendation #6). The
Grand Jury's concern was that numerous handguns were piled on a shelf, limiting the orderl y
removal/examination of a particular firearm . The San Luis Obispo Police Department recognize s
the importance of orderly storage procedures and has recently purchased boxes for the storage o f
handguns . Upon receiving the boxes, the Property and Evidence Clerk will place each gun in a
box and return it to its assigned storage location . In the future, the Property and Evidence Cler k
will continue to place all handguns booked into property in a box prior to storage .
Finally, the Grand Jury recommended the police chiefs and County Sheriff explore the feasibilit y
of a countywide property/evidence room consolidation (Grand Jury Recommendation #12). On
June 13, 2012, the Sheriff discussed the feasibility of countywide property/evidence consolidatio n
with the Police Chiefs at the Criminal Justice Administrators Association meeting. On the surface
this appears to be a logical plan, however,the Sheriff and the local Police Chiefs determined tha t
this idea would result in significant costs and logistical operational difficulties for cities and th e
County . The Chiefs and Sheriff will continue to look for opportunities to collaborate on evidenc e
disposal and evaluate the possibility of the consolidation of the long term storage of refrigerate d
evidence items .
The Police Department appreciates the findings made by the Grand Jury and its efforts in th e
function of law enforcement property and evidence rooms . If there are further questions o r
comments regarding the Police Department's response to the report, please don't hesitate to
contact Lt. Jeff Smith, at 781-7321 .
Respectfully submitted ,
Steve Gesell, Police Chie f
end : Property/Evidence Inventory Repor t
cc :
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
C4-45 -
Page intentionally lef t
blank .