From: "Jim Sutherland-Moore (Tyedye)" <[t--ed--e] at [GOLDRUSH.COM]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.psychoactives
Subject: Grand jury helps in drug task forces demise
Date: 1 Nov 1995 06:18:15 GMT
This final report was written by the 1994-1995 Calaveras County Grand Jury.
Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Narcotics Enforcement Team (ACTNET)
Findings:
ACTNET functions as a joint powers agency, created by the grant application of the three
respective counties on an annual fiscal basis. ACTNET is commanded by two officers of the States'
Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, but administered by the three Sheriffs and District Attorneys
from Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne Counties, along with the Sonora chief of police. The State
of California funds the headquarters, the staff commanders and training, while the three counties
supply the officers and equipment.
On August 24th 1994 the members of the Law and Justice committee toured the local
headquarters of ACTNET located in Angels Camp and interviewed the two state employed commanders.
Statistics provided by ACTNET relating exclusively to Calaveras County showed the following
information:
ACTNET made 57 arrests in Calaveras County in 1994 related to possession, sales, or
manufacturing of drugs, 24 for marijuana and 33 for methamphetamines. One methamphetamine
laboratory was discovered and subsequently dismantled.
Of cases that went to court from these 1994 arrests, plus prior year offenses disposed in
1994, 100% of marijuana sales were dismissed, 25% of marijuana possession dismissed, and 41% of
methamphetamine sales dismissed.
This brings the total to just over 25% of ALL drug cases being dismissed outright, not
counting the substantial percentage of convicted offenders that were diverted for treatment or
simply fined. Out of 39 drug cases closed in 1994, 2 felons went to prison and 16 minor
offenders went to jail.
However, research revealed that only 15 people were booked into our county jail by ACTNET.
One possible reason for this discrepancy, along with any others based upon their statistics, is
that when more than one illegal substance is found at a scene, arrest statistics
will sometimes be compiled under multiple offenses.
Also, when a group of persons is found at a scene where illegal drugs are present, often times
ALL are initially arrested, with charges ultimately being dropped against the majority who were
not culpable.
In 1994, when a sheriffs deputy would discover drugs or drug paraphernalia, ACTNET officers
were usually notified, with arrests being made by them. This resulted in a significant increase
in ACTNET's arrest statistics. (This policy has already been changed under Sheriff Downum).
It is the opinion of this Grand Jury that statistics provided by ACTNET are misleading.
It is also our opinion that the unit is overly concerned with concentrating on cases that will
generate arrest statistics that will impress the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
Recent newspaper articles published by the Sonora Union Democrat cited concerns by Amador
County Sheriff Ken Blake that his County was not getting a reasonable amount of attention from
ACTNET. Sheriff Nutting of Tuolumne County was quoted in the article as saying, "You've got to
put something in to get something out. We need to learn what their expectations are and see if we
can satisfy them with their level of commitment". If this quote is accurate, Sheriff Nutting
seems to be suggesting that because Amador County can only afford to supply one police officer to
the ACTNET force, (as does Calaveras County), they cannot expect to get the same results.
This directly contradicts the 'purpose' of ACTNET as detailed in the 'Memorandum of
Understanding' ('MOU') between the counties which says, "Use of this task force concept is
intended to insure well-coordinated narcotic enforcement regionally and increase the flow of
narcotic related intelligence information between the various law enforcement agencies
participating in the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement task force program."
Also, under 'goals and objectives', the 'MOU' reads that ACTNET is to "assist requesting
agencies on specific drug problems within their respective jurisdictions in the counties of
Tuolumne, Calaveras, and Amador as needed and authorized by the ACTNET Council."
Just because almost half of ACTNET's staffing is supplied by Tuolumne County, with half of
them salaried by the grant, it should not and does not mean that they are entitled to better
concentration of enforcement efforts by ACTNET. This illustrates a serious lack of communication
or agreement on investigative priorities between the ACTNET council members representing the
counties, the supervisors at ACTNET, and the States Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.
Serious questions have arisen concerning Calaveras County's civil liability with regards to
actions by officers who are employed by other counties or the State. A specific incident occurred
at Columbia State Park, concerning two off duty officers from another county who were involved in
a shooting. Even though the original agreement between the counties specifically provided that
ONLY those counties who's officers may be involved would be liable, this incident resulted in
Calaveras County spending just over $4,000.00 in attorney fees to have our county removed from the
lawsuit as a defendant. These liability concerns between the counties and the State have yet to
be resolved. Until they are, recurring problems with liability will inevitably arise in the
future and conceivably could cost Calaveras County taxpayers even more money.
It has not been made clear who actually governs ACTNET, the council members representing the
three counties or the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. For example, when the Grand Jury requested
a copy of ACTNET's lease document from a council member from ACTNET, we were referred to the
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement in Sacramento, who then demanded that our request be made in
writing. After submitting our request in writing, the buck was passed back to ACTNET's' council
chairman. It took 5 weeks to obtain the lease copy, which is in any case, a public document.
In December of 1994 a request was made to the ACTNET commanders for a copy of the Department
of Justice audit performed on ACTNET. Initially the request was refused. Our request was
resubmitted through the County Counsels office. It took over one month to finally receive the
copy we desired and were legally entitled to.
In the Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement and the joint
counties, under section 3.3 it is stated, "that all members of ACTNET shall abide by applicable
policies and procedures as expressed in the Amador\Calaveras\Tuolumne Narcotic Enforcement Team
Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual. However, as detailed in the Department of Justice
audit of ACTNET, investigation showed that many regulations regarding asset seizure and forfeiture
were routinely over looked. It could be assumed that after eight years of operation these clearly
written procedures would be understood and followed consistently by ACTNET's commanders.
The Grand Jury heard complaints that ACTNET was unresponsive to citizens complaints to them
about drug offenses.
ACTNET officers were quoted in the Department of Justice audit that they were frustrated
because; "I don't like the inability to gather intelligence and develop bigger cases instead of
working smaller cases for numbers", and, "They don't try to pursue the big time operators".
These opinions are shared by many of our government officials and some ACTNET Council members
who, unlike Tuolumne County, do not feel they are getting 'enough bang for the buck'.
It is the opinion of the District Attorney, County Counsel, and the Grand Jury that ACTNET,
functioning as a local joint powers agency is required to adhere to open meeting laws as set forth
in the Brown Act. (Violations of which can be a criminal offense). Even when these meetings are
specifically exempted from being open, it is required that an agenda be created and minutes are to
be kept. This is specifically required in the 'MOU' signed by the counties and the Bureau of
Narcotic Enforcement.
A letter was sent by the Grand Jury to the Sheriffs' and District Attorneys' of all three
counties asking for an explanation as to why they have neglected to abide by the laws and
conditions of the Brown Act. We were not satisfied with the responses, which went on to inform us
that an opinion from the Attorney General was being requested. These opinions can take up to one
year to process. The ACTNET Council appeared content to continue to allow meetings and closed
sessions that we were convinced are illegal.
An 'unofficial' opinion recently obtained from the Attorney General's office a few months
later failed to convince our County Counsel, District Attorney, or Grand Jury that drug task
forces are less accountable to the citizens who empower them than any other local agency.
Our County Counsel then advised Sheriff Downum that the ACTNET Council was subject to the
Brown Act, and further advised him not to attend any unauthorized meetings. At the next scheduled
ACTNET Council meeting Sheriff Downum notified the rest of the council that Calaveras County
representatives would not attend if the meeting was held in closed session, and he then left.
In a letter sent April 13, 1995, the Grand Jury made a 'demand' pursuant to Government Code
section 54960.1 to the remaining members of the council to cure any future violations or to show
cause for not doing so. As of May 22nd they had not responded to our demand, although we were
informed that their next council meeting was agendized and public notice was given of an open
meeting.
We found that ACTNET and the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, were often secretive or
uncooperative in responding to requests for information.
Some of our written requests simply went unanswered. It seems that some ACTNET officials do
not believe that the Grand Jury has authority to inquire into their operations and records because
they are a 'State run' agency.
Such lack of cooperation with the representatives of Calaveras County's representatives
goes far to promote distrust for those agencies whose actions are required to be open to public
examination and therefore public accountability.
Recommendations:
1) It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors do not renew their grant application to the
state for ACTNET's funding, and that our assigned deputy along with other assets be withdrawn by
Sheriff Downum.
Responses required:
Board of Supervisors
Sheriff Downum
District Attorney John Martin
ACTNET Council
County Counsel