Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07182000 - C166 CIE TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Cont a Costa FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, County Administrator County DATE: July 18, 2000 J' SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0001 ENTITLED "FIRE SUPPRESSION AT THE PROPERTY AND s EVIDENCE STORAGE FACILITY" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT the attached report prepared by the Sheriff-Coroner, Warren E. Rupf, as the Board of Supervisors' response to Report No. 0001 of the 1999-2000 Grand Jury entitled, "Fire Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility". BACKGROUND: The 1999-2000 Grand Jury fled the above report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator and Sheriff-Coroner. After reviewing the report, the Sheriff-Coroner prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. Whether the finding and recommendation is accepted or adopted; B. If the finding and recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted by cannot be implemented within a calendar year; and D. The reason for not adopting a finding and/or recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: i-, YES SIGNATURE: ,COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ON OF BOARD COMMITTEE PROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF OF BOA Ju 1 Y 18 , 2 0 0 0 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT #1 ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED July 18, 2000 CONTACT:JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: SHERIFF-CORONER COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR CAPITAL FACILITIESIDEBT MGMT DIRECTOR BY DEPUTY The following is the Office of Sheriff's response to Grand Jury Report No. 0001: Fire Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility 401 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA FINDINGS Findings No. T. 2, 3. 4. 5. and 6 9. There are three smoke detectors in the building, two on the ceiling of the main room, and one in the small room for storing chemicals and ammunition. These smoke detectors are powered by the building electrical service and have a battery backup system. 2. The smoke detectors have an annunciator in the office and also send a signal to an external monitoring facility. in the event a detector is actuated, it is noted by a person at the monitoring facility who is then required to contact the fire department. The external monitoring facility is staffed 24 hours per day, seven days per week. 3. There are a number of fire extinguishers within the facility, but the Sheriff's Department policy states they are only to be used for"small"fires considered easily suppressible without outside help. 4. Sheriff's Department policy states that if a fire is detected, 919 is to be called and the building evacuated. 5. A fire at this facility would be devastating to pending prosecutions. 6. The building met the fire codes at the time the Sheriff's Department took occupancy. Response to Findings No. 1, 2 3 4 and 6 The Office of the Sheriff agrees with Findings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Response to Finding No. 5 A. The Office of the Sheriff disagrees, in part, with Finding No. 5. B. Any loss of evidence, whether by fire, water damage, theft, earthquake, accidental release, temperature extremes, rodents, or other means, may make the prosecution of a case more problematic. However, when reasonable efforts have been taken to preserve the integrity of evidence, alternatives to the evidence may be introduced in court. Such alternatives may include photographs, samples, witness testimony or written documentation. Furthermore, that evidence which tends to be most critical in Response to Grand Jury Report No. 001 on Fire Page 2 Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility the prosecution of cases, such as firearms, items contaminated by biological fluids and lifted latent fingerprints, are not at risk from a fire in the Property and Evidence Storage Facility. We feel that we have taken reasonable efforts. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion No. 1 The Sheriff's policies clearly are designed to protect facility personnel in the event of a fire. Response to Conclusion No. 1 The Office of the Sheriff agrees with Conclusion No. 1. Conclusion No. 2 The evidence stored in 409 is critical for criminal prosecution. Destruction of this evidence might force the District Attorney to drop criminal prosecutions, thus forcing the release of incarcerated suspects. Further, with evidence destroyed, pending appeals may be successful, forcing the release of convicted criminals. Response to Conclusion No. 2 A. The Office of the Sheriff disagrees, in part, with Conclusion No. 2. B. The Office of the Sheriff agrees that certain evidence stored in the Property and Evidence facility is critical for criminal prosecution. The majority of the stored items, however, are never utilized in criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, in the most serious criminal cases, such as homicides, the evidence that tends to have the greatest evidentiary value is not likely to be at risk from a fire. This includes firearms, items with biological stains(stored in the freezer)and latent fingerprints which are stored off sight. C. Evidence in the most serious offenses, is typically processed and sampled before it is placed in storage. In the event that such evidence is subsequently lost, stolen or damaged, it may be difficult to establish the chain of custody for the evidence, making its introduction in court problematic. However, there is often both written and photographic documentation of the evidence as well as forensic examination results that can be utilized with the proper foundation in criminal proceedings. D. It is unlikely that any pending criminal appeal would be successful based on the destruction or loss of evidence subsequent to a trial. The purpose of a criminal appeal is to consider points of law, not for the reintroduction or examination of evidence. The loss of evidence would be most problematic if a new trial were granted. Response to Grand Jury Report No. 001 on Fire Page 3 Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility Conclusion No. 3 the lack of automatic fire suppression equipment in 4179, coupled with the Sheriff's policy on the use of fire extinguishers and the flammable nature of the storage method (paper bags), increases the probability that a fire in the facility would rapidly expand long before the fire department arrived on the scene. Response to Conclusion No. 3 A. The Office of the Sheriff agrees with Conclusion No. 3. B. Evidence is stored in paper in order to preserve fingerprints and to retard damage from moisture. This is the professional standard and unfortunately,there are no reasonable alternatives that do not pose other risks to the preservation of the evidence. Conclusion No. 4 The Sheriff's duty is to collect and protect evidence of crimes so that prosecution can be successful in courts. This requirement implies, therefore, that he should take reasonable steps to protect the evidence in his custody from fire loss. This is not being done. Response to Conclusion No. 4 A. The Office of the Sheriff disagrees with Conclusion No. 4. B. The Office of the Sheriff certainly must take reasonable steps to protect and preserve any evidence of crimes which comes into its custody. Such protection and preservation must be against all loss, not just fire loss. That is being done. C. Fire suppression is only one small part of any plan to preserve and protect evidence. Because evidence can be altered and damaged as the result of an automatic fire suppression system,too,fire prevention is far more critical to the protection of evidence than is fire suppression. Q. The Office of the Sheriff employs a variety of means to prevent a fire in the Property and Evidence facility. This includes the following: 1. The Property and Evidence facility is regularly inspected by the fire department and complies with all fire codes. 2. Flammable materials with low flash points (such as gasoline and solvents) are not allowed in the facility except as samples in very small quantities. 3. Samples of flammable materials that are stored are packaged in non-flammable absorbent material to prevent ignition and fire. Response to Grand .fury Report No. 001 on Fire Page 4 Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility 4. Incompatible materials that might pose a risk of ignition are segregated. 5. Samples of flammable materials are stored in an explosion-proof room to contain any fire without damage to the rest of the facility. 6. Although evidence must be stored in paper(which can provide a fuel source but will not spontaneously ignite)to preserve the evidence,the facility itself and the shelves on which items are stored are not flammable. 7. The facility and its processes are controlled to prevent ignition sources that could start a fire. A. Evidence can be damaged or lost from threats other than fire. The best method of storing an item may vary depending on the most likely threat for the loss or damage of an item. Consequently, it may be necessary to store an item in a way that would place it at greater risk for damage from fire in order to prevent its loss or damage from another higher level of threat. In all the years that the Office of the Sheriff has had a Property and Evidence storage facility, there has never been a fire. B. The Office of the Sheriff has taken all reasonable steps to preserve the evidence within its custody from all threats. Recommendation The 1909-2000 Centra Costa Grand Jury recommends: The Sheriff immediately fake steps to have an adequate automatic fire suppression system installed of 401 if this building is to continue to be used for evidence and property storage. Response to Recommendation A. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. B. The County has entered into a purchase agreement for a new property storage facility at 2099 Arnold Industrial Way. A design study has been completed for the remodel of the building. Construction drawings are currently being developed. The remodel will include fire sprinklers as well as other safety features not available in the existing facility. It is anticipated that the Property and Evidence Storage function will be relocated from 401 Escobar Street to the new building within the next twelve months. Given the pending relocation of the Property and Evidence Storage function, it is not reasonable to expend funds modifying the existing, inadequate building. Response to Grand Jury Report No. 001 on Fire Fuge 5 Suppression at the Property and Evidence Storage Facility Comments If the status quo on this issue continues and if a fire were to totally destroy 401, the Sheriff would not be able to use, as an excuse, the statement that the building met the code when took it over, nor would the General Services Department(GSD). The Grand Jury has been told that GSD is the custodian of all County buildings and acts as agent for the County in leasing buildings used by the County, and that the Sheriff's Office may not demand improvements or relocation to other facilities. It is difficult for the Grand Jury to believe the Sheriff would accept anything that the GSD chose to offer if he felt it did not meet his needs. Why, then, does the Sheriff accept the lack of automatic fire suppression equipment at 401? Certainly, if such a fire were to occur, the District Attorney, Board of Supervisors and the County citizens might find the Sheriff and the GSD were both negligent for not having automatic fire suppression equipment at 401. Response to Comments The Office of the Sheriff is mystified by the apparent gratuitous comments of the Grand Jury regarding the role of the Sheriff in the deficiencies of the facility at 401 Escobar Street. The Office of the Sheriff has been aware of the numerous problems and deficiencies associated with the building at 401 Escobar Street, of which the lack of fire suppression is only one. This has been conveyed to the County in the form of a continuing budget request to replace the building. However, the Office of the Sheriff did not have the funding or authority to enter into an agreement to replace an inadequate facility. Neither did the General Services Department. That authority and funding must come from the Board of Supervisors. There was never an issue of the Sheriff accepting an inadequate facility. But it made little sense to expend significant funds to add fire suppression to a building that would continue to have serious deficiencies. More than three years ago, the Lease Management Division of the General Services Department began a search for an acceptable replacement facility for Property and Evidence Storage as a result of the complaints about the existing building. It was not until last year that a building became available that would meet the needs of the Property and Evidence Storage function. Since that time, there has been a significant amount of work expended to acquire and remodel the building. Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors approved the acquisition of the building at 2099 Arnold Industrial Way. The Grand Jury was advised of the efforts to acquire a new building. However, the authorization to purchase the building had not been granted at the time of the Grand Jury's investigation. Regardless, the criticism of the Grand Jury toward the Office of the Sheriff is unwarranted and contentious.