04a Staff Report - Inquiry Into Police Evidence Rooms in SCC
DATE: TO: FROM: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT August 12, 2004 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL ORRY P. KORB, TOWN MEETING DATE: 8/16/04 AGENDA ITEM: LJA SUBJECT: APPROVERESPONSE TO
SANTACLARACOUNTYCNILGRANDJURY REPORT-INQUIRYINTOPOLICEEVIDENCEROOMSINSANTACLARA COUNTY RECOMMENDATION: Approve response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report -Inquiry into Police
Evidence Rooms in Santa Clara County. BACKGROUND: The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury conducted a survey ofthe auditing practices for evidence rooms at 13 police agencies within
Santa Clara County. The Grand Jury found that only five evidence rooms had been audited by external auditors in the last five years, while a majority ofthe agencies surveyedperiodically
spot check their ownrecords for accuracy. In addition the Grand Jury found; that personnel were dedicated and diligent and compliant with good practices for evidence handiing, that more
space was needed for all evidence rooms with the exception of San Jose's, that some agencies use electronic record keeping while others use manual paper systems, and that 3 rooms do
not have separate air venting systems for the storage ofnarcotics. DISCUSSION: The Civil Grand Jury is empowered to investigate the policies and practices of public agencies within the
County of Santa Clara and to make recommendations for changing current or adopting newprocedures. California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that the governing body ofthe entity subject
to a grandjuryreport respond within 90 days to the findings and recommendations contained PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY OPKlwp [N:IATY\TC.RePort.grandjury.evidence.rooms.wpd]
",--",,--__own Manager Finance Rev: 8112104 8:21 am Refonnatted: 7/19/99 \7 Assistant Town Manager Community Develo ment Clerk File# 301-05
PAGE 2 SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CNIL GRAND JURY REPORT -INQUIRY INTO POLICE EVIDENCE ROOMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY August 12,2004
in the report. The response must either agree or disagree in whole or in part with the findings and state the reasons for any disagreement, and further state whether the recommendations
have or will be implemented and the plan for doing so, an explanation of the reasons for not doing so, or whether the recommendation requires further study and how that study will
be conducted in a frame oftime not to exceed 6 months. The Grand Jury Report -Inquiry into Police Evidence Rooms in Santa Clara County contains seven factual findings and ten recommendations.
Attached are the findings and recommendations along with staff's proposed responses to each. Attachments: 1. Grand Jury Report -Inquiry into Police Evidence Rooms in Santa Clara County.
2. Proposed response.
RECEIVED -,UN -! LOS GA10S10WN ATTORNEY· May 28, 2004 Honorable Steve Glickman Mayor Town ofLos Gatos 110 East Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mayor Glickman
and Members ofthe City Council: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05(f), the 2003-2004 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final. Report, Inquiry into Police
Evidence Rooms. in Santa Clara County. .'\ Penal Code Section 933.05(f) <j 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 and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency
shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Leg. H. 1996 ch. 1170, 1997 ch 443. CHARD H. WOODWARD Foreperson 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury
RHW:dsa Enc. j J"'-FOR YOUR INFORMATION This report will be made public and released to to the media on Friday, June 4th, A.M. Gloria Alicia Chacon, Executive Assistant 408-882-2721
S,-'fERIOR COURT BUILOINC ·191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 951B. (408) 882-2721 • FAX 58'.27,3 AtTACHMENT 1 .
2003-2004 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INQUIRY INTO POLICE EVIDENCE ROOMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Summary The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) conducted a survey
of the auditing practices for evidence rooms at thirteen police agencies within Santa Clara County (County), including the County District Attorney's Bureau of Investigations (DA), arid
the Office of the Sheriff. The Grand Jury inspected five representative police evidence rooms, interviewed personnel in charge of the evidence rooms, and reviewed procedures for securing
and storing evidence within the police agencies. Tpe Grand Jqry found that only five (5 out of 13) evidence rooms had been audited by external auditors in the last five years. A majority
of the agencies surveyed periodically spot check their own records for accuracy. The Grand Jury found the following in the evidence rooms they inspected: • Personnel were extremely dedicated
and diligent, as well as compliant with good practices for evidence handling. • More space was needed (except at the San Jose Police Department). • Recordkeeping technology varied widely.
Some agencies had data management software and bar code equipment to track each piece of evidence. Others only had manual paper systems. • Three evidence rooms did not have separate
air venting systems for the storage of narcotics. Background For purposes of this report, police evidence rooms are storage rooms with the systems for securing and retrieving evidence.
They are under the control ofpolice departments, public safety departments, the Office ofthe Santa Clara County District Attorney (DA), and the County Office of the Sheriff Police evidence
rooms contain evidence; property held for safekeeping; such as
...• guns confiscated in domestic violence incidents and money or property from accidents; and lost property found within the local jurisdiction. The most critical property stored is
evidence collected during the course of an investigation into a crime. Evidence plays a vital role in the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of persons who have been accused
of criminal acts. Maintaining a proper, well-documented chain of custody and ensuring the integrity of evidence are crucial to successful law enforcement, prosecution, and court operations.
Examples of evidence range from DNA and biological evidence that must be specially stored at temperatures, to large pieces of evidence such as vehicles. Less than 1%
of evidence collected is used in trials. Most evidence related to crimes and investigations is returned to owners or destroyed when cases are resolved. In the case of property crimes,
the physical evidence is processed for fingerprints and photographed; its serial number is recorded and then released to its owner. Legislation requires criminal justice agencies to
maintain certain evidence fOf extended periods of time, sometimes forever. For example, the law mandates that all death penalty case evidence be held indefinitely. Evidence from certain
homicides, sexual assaults, and serious fdonies is secured for a long time. Domestic violence tapes are stored for ten years. Often, the evidence must be kept for the lifetime of a convicted
criminal and even beyond, if other individuals could, at some time, be tried or exonerated for the crime. In those property crime cases where no has been identified, evidence
is kept for a period prescribed by law for the specific crime. The security of property stored for safekeeping and found property is equally important as a matter of public trust, even
though this property does not enter the judicial system. Much of the found property may be auctioned ifthe owners cannot be found or do not wish to claim it. Every police agency receives
evidence collected at a crime scene and throughout the entire investigation period. Police headquarters have packaging stations for the proper handling and storage of evidence. Packaging
has the dual purpose of inhibiting contamination as well as preventing deterioration or destruction. Packaging also assists in efficient warehousing and retrieval. A locker system secures
evidence until the evidence technician processes the material for storage or it is picked up for transport to the County Crime Laboratory for analysis. When crimes occur,
the police agency crime scene investigation unit reports to the scene to ensure that all evidence is properly packaged and labeled. Clothing may need to be dried, paperwork completed,
and other evidence examined prior to being forwarded to the evidenc: room. Usually the evidence and property storage funCtion within each police agency is assigned to one or more technicians
who are not sworn police officers. Some agencies combine evidence room activities with the other duties of a sworn officer. In both cases, evidence room personnel work closely with detectives
as they investigate crimes and work towards convictions in concert with theDA. 2
Discussion The Grand Jury sent out questionnaires to thirteen law enforcement agencies, including the DA, inquiring into their auditing practices. The Grand Jury asked three questions
in its survey: 1. Who in your organization directly supervises your evidence room? The answers were: • 4 investigating • 3 detective sergeants • 3 division captains
• 1 assistant chief • 1 commander • 1 deputy chief 2. Has your evidence room been audited in the last five years? The answers were: • 8 Yes, but not complete and by using internal personnel.
• 5 Yes, by external auditors 3. Is an audit scheduled within the next two years? The answers were: • 6No • 4 Yes, by internal personnel. • 3 Yes, by external auditors The data are tabulated
in Appendix A. After reviewing the responses, the Grand Jury visited a representative group of evidence rooms to see firsthand how evidence and property were being handled. Because of
time constraints and limited resources, the G!l:lIld Jury selt::ctedfiye out of thirteen evidence rooms to visit. The DA evidence room was added to this schedule of visits, since it
also collects and stores criminal evidence, (See Appendix B). Evidence rooms fall under the supervision of the investigative or services division/bureau. Usually, direct
is by a senior detective sergeant or higher-ranking sworn officer. A non-sworn community services technician usually performs the actual physical and clerical work. Procedures for receiving,
packaging, storing, and tracking evidence are well documented in the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Law Enforcement and Evidence Management Guide. The California
Association for Property Evidence (CAPE) and the California Criminal Justice Information Center also publish guidelines and best practice bulletins for county police departments' use.
The county has a very active local chapter of CAPE called 3
·.../Santa Clara County Regional Association of Property and Evidence (SCRAPE); police agencies in the county, as well as other law enforcement agencies like the CHP, County Crime Laboratory,
college and university campus police, and the Superior Court belong to SCRAPE and network at bimonthly meetings. Currently this group is developing consistent policies and procedures
for all ofthe county's agencies dealing with property and evidence. A major problem in the management of police evidence rooms is the lack of physical space. With the advances in DNA
testing, biological evidence has become very important. The CalIfornia_Department of Justice maintains. a database of DNA profiles of offenders for use in the identification of future
sexual assault suspects and victims. County law enforcement agencies . store most biological evidence indefinitely in refrigerators on the chance of matcring suspects or victims to this
database in the future. Tnese actions add to the volume of evidence that is stored in police evidence rooms. The storage of found property-mainly bicycles and backpacks--eonsumes an
inordinate amount of space for its value and exacerbates the crowding in evidence rooms. In some cases, the space needed to hold these items was greater than the size of the main evidence
storage rooms. Some agencies are working very hard to dispose of these items through outside auction companies after a 90-day holding period. The length of the holding period is not
a hard and fast -rule, but is established by each municipality. The practice ofphotographing certain physical evidence and then purging it has helped, but there is no reason to expect
that the volume of evidence, property for safekeeping and found property stored in the county's evidence rooms is likely to decrease in the future. Grand Jury Inspections: Summary of
Facts Physical and access security are satisfactory, or better, at all the main evidence rooms, (See Appendix B) Environments are made secure and access was controlled by some combination
of the following: location in the interior ofpolice buildings, multiple locks, a very limited number of keys, motion sensors, cameras, alarms, and log-in/log-out procedures. Physical
and access security at off-site locations where bulky items, old evidence, and found property is stored is also satisfactory or better in all cases, although the Grand Jury noted log-in
and log-out procedures are not always followed. With off-site storage sites multiplying, satisfactory physical and access security might become harder to maintain. Space is the biggest
constraint on evidence room operations. With the exception of San Jose, with its new warehouse-size evidence room, and Gilroy, with plans for a new police facility and large evidence
room (to be completed in 2006), the other inspected rooms must make the best use of very limited space. Compromises are made on orderliness, shelving, boxing, and filing systems in order
to make organizational systems work within confined spaces. The burgeoning amount of evidence makes off-site storage a necessity. Off-site storage sites ranged from pre-fab trailers
to commercial storage rooms to a site shared with a fire department. Those agencies -which routinely purged and/or auctioned items, especially large found items like bicycles and backpacks,
wisely and proactively cleared space for new evidence and property. Making the 4
space problem even more difficult are the growing number of legal mandates and more informal requests from prosecutors to store critical evidence for longer periods of time. The combination
of limited space and demands for longer storage periods produces the cramped and sometimes overflowing evidence rooms the Grand Jury toured. A second constraint for several evidence
rooms is a lack of resources for upgrading to computerized recordkeeping. A computerized system has obvious benefits. It would streamline a sometimes cumbersome process of identifying
and recording evidence, expedite location and retrieval of evidence, provide easy access to the complete inventory and chain of custody documents, and facilitate regular purging. 'With
only periodic purging and/or without a routine system for flagging items fot final disposition, evidence continues to build up, contributing to already crowded conditions in the storage
rooms. That said, all inspected evidence rooms maintained at least satisfactory recordkeeping, whether manual or automated. Grand Jury on-thespot requests for specific items were always
met with successf'ul retrieval. Documentation ofchain ofcustody was uniformly excellent at all sites. However, when evidence leaves the site to go to court, the police-controlled document
trail abruptly ends. Evidence room staff had limited knowledge about what happens to evidence once it enters the court system. A subcommittee of SCRAPE is working on a proposed procedure
to document this transfer, for subsequent adoption by the court and local police agencies. All evidence rooms earned high marks for safekeeping biological evidence, hazardous materials,
ammunition, guns, high value items, and cash, with the exception of one case where a growing amount of found moriey was casually stored and another case where a large sum of money in
a safe was never inventoried. Narcotics are kept securely in all instances. However, at half the sites, they are not vented to the outside, thus creating a health hazard for employees.
Routine and safe disposal of guns, biological and hazardous materials, aiidnarcotics earned all inspected rooms the highest grade. At all locations, the civilian technicians who staffed
the evidence rooms-with very little turnover-·were knowledgeable, skilled and dedicated workers who, although interfacing on a daily basis with police bringing evidence in for storage
or retrieving evidence for investigationslprosecutions, conducted their internal operations independently. At the majority of sites, senior staff did not make regular (either anIlotinced
or unannounced) escorted visits to inspect evidence rooms. Perhaps, this hands-off management was based on the fear that such visits might complicate chain of custody questions and thus
jeopardize the integrity of the evidence. Finding I As a general rule, the county police agencies perform audits oftheir evidence rooms after there is a change iIi' the senior management
of the department or key evidence personnel. Department personnel not directly involved in the evidence handling or its supervisi9n usually perform this audit. Many departments periodically
use a spot check of records against the physical item to test theintegrity oftheir control systems. 5
·', ......., Recommendation I A full performance and physical audit by. a competent outside agency should be performed at least every four years. The practice ofspot check auditing should
continue at least twice a year. Finding II Most police evidence and property rooms' are overcrowded and the agencies have expanded secure storage by rehabilitating rooms within the stations,
renting or purchasing temporary buildings, renting additional space, or have resorted to renting commercial public storage. Recommendation II-A Police agencies should complete a total
inventory of their evidence and property and purge those items out of the secured storage area that can be returned to the owner or disposed of per California statute. Recommendation
II-B Police agencies should enforce the policy in existence or develop a policy of not holding found property over 90 days, in order to regularly clear property out of the system, with
special attention to bulky items such as bicycles and backpacks. Recommendation 11-C . Police agencies should explore the development of a common facility within the county for the long-term
storage of evidence and property, including biological evidence, and reduce the storage of evidence and property on the police premises to active cases and newly found property. Finding
III There is no procedUre in place for documenting the change of custody that occurs when the police relinquish possession ofevidence to the court for trial. Recommendation III The Grand
Jury recommends that until a common policy' for the transfer of evidence into the court system is adopted by the courts and the County's police agencies, that it be the responsibility
of the police departments to obtain a court official's signature on a dated receipt listing all evidence handed over to the jurisdiction of the court, with copies provided to the court.
The same receipt can be signed and dated again when evidence is returned to the police department. 6
Finding IV Some·. police evidence rooms. do not vent narcotic holding areas separately from the main air conditioning systems. Recommendation IV Police agencies should install an appropriate
air venting system or move the narcotics storage area toa location where venting to the outside can be economically installed. Finding V The lack of office automation in some evidence
rooms increases the clerical workload, introduces the possibility of errors into the tracking system, and inhibits the timely identification ofproperty records for final disposition.
Recommendation V Police agencies should acquire appropriate computer hardware and software to track evidence and property in arid out of evidence rooms. A standard spreadsheet or database
program would often suffice. . Finding VI Top management within the police agencies often stay clear ofevidence rooms. Recommendation VI The chief of police, or equivalent, or his deputy,
should tour and review the evidence room at least annually to observe the working conditions for evidence room personnel, the conditioh of the evidence room,. and the operating procedures.
Finding VII Most of the police agencies within the county are members of CAPE and SCRAPE and participate in procedural development, and network at educational development conferences
provided by CAPE and SCRAPE. . 7
" \. J I " Recommendation VII-A Police agency personnel involved in evidence and property matters should continue to participate in CAPE and SCRAPE functions. Recommendation VII-B Santa
Clara County police agencies should explore the possibility of inspecting each other's police evidence rooms to share good techniques and ideas. In periods between external audits, periodic
reciprocal audits by another police agency could provide many of the benefits of an external audit at relatively little cost. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand
Jury on this 20th day of May 2004. Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 8
. APPENDIX A Evidence Room Survey Responses LAST AUDIT NEXT AUDIT Agency Type of .Audit Type of Audit Type of Audit Date Audit Date Audit Campbell Internal 2002 Internal Spot Not Scheduled
Morgan Hill External 2003 External 2004 External Gilroy External 2000 External Not Scheduled Los Altos Internal 2001 Internal 2004 Internal Los Gatos Internal 2003 Internal Not Monte
Sereno Scheduled Milpitas Unknown Unknown Unknown Not Scheduled Mountain View Internal 2003 Internal 2004 External Palo Alto Internal 2003 Internal 2004 Internal San Jose Internal 2003
Internal 2005 Internal Santa Clara External 2002 External Not Scheduled Sunnyvale External 2001 External 2004 External District Attorney Internal 2001 futemal Spot 2004 External County
Sheriff External 1999 External Not External Scheduled 9
, , APPENDIXB Police Evidence Room Inspection Assessment Grades Gilroy Los Altos Los Gatos Palo Alto San Jose District Attorney Physical Security C B B C B B Access Security B
B B B B C Space I C B B D(Fac) I A B I Recordkeeping C A B C B C Chain of Custody A A A A A A Storage D(Fac) B A C B B Organization Biological Storage A A A A A A GunslHigh Value C A
A A A A Items/$ Narcotics D(Fac) . B D(Fac) D(Fac) B N/A Disposals A A A A A A ,-,' Found Property D(Fac) C C A C N/A Management C C B C A B Practice Legend: The single-grade ratings
above are the lowest rating for observations made in three categories and not an overall rating for L,.e function: • Facilities (Fac) • Procedures (P) • Best Practices (BP) • Disposals
-Disposal of Gtms and Narcotics • Management Practices -visits by senior management A = Excellent B = Exceed minimum requirements C = Satisfactory . D =Needs hnprovement 10
References Documents California Peace Officer Standards andTraining (P.O.S.T.) www.post.ca.g<?v. Law Enforce Property and Evi.dence Manag.e. ment Guide, POST, May 2001. Physic.al Evidence
Manual, Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory, July 8, 1998. Santa Clara Regional Association ofProperty and Evidence (SCRAPE) Bulletins. Written Responses to the Grand Jury's survey See
Attachment A for a compilation. Tours with Interviews Gilroy Police Department, February 2, 2004. Los Alto Police Department, January 26,2004. Los Gatos Police Department, February 19,2004.
Palo Alto Police Department, January 26,2004. San Jose Police Department, January 16, 2004. Santa Clara County District Attorney, Investigations Bureau, January 30, 2004. 11
",," \. ) RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS RE: EVIDENCE ROOMS Finding I As a general rule, the county police agencies perform audits oftheir evidence rooms after there is a change
in the senior management ofthe department or key evidence personnel. Department personnel not directly involved in the evidence handling or its supervision usuallyperform this audit.
Many departments periodically use a spot check ofrecords against the physical item to test the . integrity oftheir control system. Response Agree Recommendation I Afull performance andphysical
audit by a competent outside agency should beperformed at least everyfour years. The practice ofspot check auditing should continue at least twice a year. Response Has not been implemented,
but will be implemented in the future. An analysis of this procedure should occur by the end ofthis calendar year in order to examine the costs and logistics associated with using an
outside auditor. Though not used in the past, the Police Department finds merit in the recommendation of periodic reviews performed by an outside auditor. Because funds are not currently
budgeted for such services, use of outside auditor services would not begin earlier than fiscal year 2005-2006. The costs an logistics associatedwith implementing such a program, coupled
with the Town's financial condition, would likely determine if outside auditing services are . employed in the next fiscal year. The Police Department currentlyperforms and intends to
continue spot checks every 6 months. Finding n /Mostpolice agencies andproperty rooms are overcrowded and the agencies have expanded secure storage by rehabilitating rooms within the
stations, renting or purchasing temporary buildings, renting additional space, or have resorted to renting commercial public storage. Response Agree Recommendation II-A .Police agencies
should complete a total inventory oftheir evidence andproperty andpurge those items out ofthe secured storage that can be returned to the owner or disposed ofper California statute.
Response Will not be implemented because they are neither warranted nor reasonable. While this recommendation would be beneficial to the Police Department's storage space needs, it is
not practical to complete a total inventory at this time due to time and personnel constraints. The Police ATTACHMENT 2
Department has only one full time employee assigried,to the evidence room. The recommended actions would require a prohibitively sigllificant amount of effort to complete. The recommended
actions would also be difficult due to the fact that the Police Department lacks an automated evidence tracking system. Inventories may be perfonned in the future if and when the Police
Department acquires an automated inventory control process. However, the Police Department currently purges items on a regular basis from the more recent cases. Recommendation II-B Police
agencies should enforce the policy in existence or develop a policy ofnot holding found property over 90 days, in order to regularly cl-earproperty out ofthe system, with special attention
to bulky items, such as bicycles and backpacks. Response Has been implemented. This recommendation follows our current policy regarding fou.nd property, which will be continued. Recommendation
II-C Police agencies should explore the development ofa commonfacility within the countyfor the longterm storage ofevidence and property, including biological evidence, and reduce the
storage of evidence andproperty on the police premises to active cases and newlyfound property. Response Requires further analysis. There is a possibility that this recommendation would
be implemented in the future. The issue was discussed at a recent meeting ofthe Santa Clara County Police Chiefs, and is currently being analyzed.'A sUrvey was condilcted·by the Palo'
Alto Police Department to ascertain the space needs ofeach agency. Once that surVeyis completed, it is likely thata search will be conducted to identify an appropriate facility which
is centrally located and that discussions will begin regarding cost sharing. Some of these issues should be addressed by the end of the current calendar year. Finding III There is no
procedure in place for documenting the chain ofcustody that oCcurs when the police relinquish possession ofevidence to the courtfor trial. Response Agree Recommendation ill The Grand
Jury recommends that until a Common policyfor the transfer ofevidence into the court system is adopted by the courts and the County's police agencies, that it be the responsibility ofthe
police departments to obtain a court official's signature on a dated receipt listing all evidence handedover to thejurisdiction ofthe cQurt, with copiesprovided to the court.
The same receipt can be signed and dated again when evidence is returned to the police department. Response
, ) Has been implemented. The Police Department currently obtains the signature of a court official when evidence is given to the court.·· The Police Department also participates
in the process of developing a uniform policy for the transfer ofevidence to the court, which policywould be adopted by all of the police agencies in the County of Santa Clara. Finding
IV Some police evidence rooms do not vent narcotic holding areas separately from the air conditioning systems. . Response Agree. Recommendation IV Police agencies should install
an appropriate air venting system or move the narcotics storage area to a location where venting to the outside can be economically installed. Response Will not be implemented because
it is neither warranted nor reasonable. The Los Gatos Police Department does not have the space necessary to provide a $eparate facility with its own venting system for narcotics. The
effort and expense required to meet this recommendation would be cost and space prohibitive. While a new police facility with vented narcotics storage room has been discussed over the
years, a new facility is not likely to be constructed in the foreseeable future. Finding V The lack ofoffice automation in some evidence rooms increases the clerical workload, introduces
the possibility oferrors into the tracking system, and inhibits the timely identification ofproperty records for final disposition. Response Agree. Recommendation V Police agencies should
acquire appropriate computer hardware to track evidence andproperty in and out ofthe evidence rooms. A standard spreadsheet or database program would often suffice. Response Requires
further analysis. Over the next two to three months, the Los Gatos Police Department intends to investigate the costs ofan automated evidence tracking system and the compatibility of
that system with the Department's current computer systems. Depending on costs, the Police Departmentmaypurchase the equipment this year. If, however, the equipment proves too expensive
for this years' budget, the purchase costs would likely be included in the Police Department's recommended fiscal year 2005-2006 budget. Finding VI Top management within the police agencies
often stqy clear ofevidence rooms. . ':-
Response Agree. Recommendation VI The ChiefofPolice, or equivalent, or his deputy should tour and review the evidence room at least annually to observe the working conditions for evidence
room personnel, the condition of the evidence room, and the operating procedures. Response Has been implemented. Both the Chief of Police and the Captain who supervises the Support Services
Division visit and are familiar with evidence room procedures. Finding VII Most ofthe police agencies within the county are members ofCAPEand SCRAPE andparticipate inprocedural development,
andnetworkat educationaldevelopment conferencesprovidedby CAPE and SCRAPE. Response Agree Recommendation VII-A Police agency personnel involved in evidence andproperty matters should
continue to participate in CAPE and SCRAPEfunctions. Response Has been implemented. The Los Gatos Police Department will continue to have personnel participating in CAPE and SCRAPE functions.
Recommendation VII-B Santa Clara County police agencies should explore the possibility ofinspecting each other'spolice evidence rooms to share good techniques and ideas. In periods between
external audits, periodic reciprocal audits by anotherpolice agency couldprovide many ofthe benefits ofan external audit at relatively little cost. Response Will not be implemented because
it is neither warranted nor reasonable. It is impractical to inspect the evidence rooms maintained by other police departinents, but it is good to share techniques With other agencies.
This is a process that the Police Depa.rtnlent engages in through its participation in CAPE and SCRAPE. Regarding audits and inspections, the Police Department believes that it is far
more beneficial to combine semi annual spot checking with the annual walk through by top Police Department management and outside audits conducted at least every four years.