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