The Shasta County grand jury found a lack of oversight and a backlog of seized assets going back to the 1990s in its investigation into the Shasta County Sheriff's Office trust accounts.
The money in the accounts are collected by the Sheriff's Office through wage garnishments, gun permit and fingerprinting fees, property or evidence held during an investigation and court fees.
The grand jury looked into five trust accounts, one of which holds funds for county jail inmates.
What happens to a person's money when they are booked into the county jail? For inmates who don't already have an account with the jail commissary system, their cash is taken during booking, sealed in an envelope and manually entered into the system.
The grand jury said there is no oversight to make sure the money entered into the system matches the amount taken from the inmate during booking.
The grand jury applied the same logic in how the Sheriff's Office collects garnished wages and enters the information into its computer system.
The same employees who receive garnishment orders could potentially change the address of where that money is sent, "thereby creating the risk of improper diversion of funds," according to the report.
Sheriff Tom Bosenko said this has never been an issue with staff in his office. If a company or person were receiving payment from a garnished wage and it suddenly stopped or changed in some way, the Sheriff's Office would notice, Bosenko said.
"We of course have valuable and trustworthy employees and have never had an issue with those accounts before. There is no evidence or indication of wrongdoing and misappropriation of funds," Bosenko said.
Also mentioned in the report is a large backlog of items held during court cases and investigations that stretches from the 1990s to 2012.
Bosenko said staff has been working on the backlog before the grand jury investigation. Moving forward, the Sheriff's Office could hire a part-time staffer to process that backlog, but it would take time to fill that position since applicants would have to go through a background check and lengthy hiring process. This clearing of a large backlog would most likely go past the deadlines set by the grand jury later this year, said Bosenko.
"It gets down to a matter of staffing and having the available staff. If there is a big case they could get pulled away from those other cases," Bosenko said.
The process to clear that backlog can be lengthy if a court decision did not specifically say what to do with the money or property.
The Sheriff's Office is supposed to contact the last owner of the money or property after a decision is made in a case or investigation.
When the grand jury reviewed the Trust Administration Fund, over $131,000 was found to be unclaimed funds. At least one case accounts for $105,000, leaving about $26,000 that could go to the county if left unclaimed.
Currently there is no policy in the Sheriff's Office to decide what to do with these assets and instead a judgment call is made on a case-by-case basis.
Bosenko said that depends on the arresting officer and his or her supervisor, who will then consult with the District Attorney's Office to determine what a court decision was on the seized assets.
The report did applaud the Sheriff's Office for making the switch to prepaid debit cards instead of signing over a check of an inmate's money after they leave the county jail. This eliminates the need for staff to follow up with unclaimed checks.
The grand jury report also recommended the county Auditor-Controller conduct more frequent surprise audits of the Sheriff's Office assets held as evidence.
June 15, 2016
Redding Record Searchlight
By Nathan Solis
No comments:
Post a Comment