◼ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
Submit quotes including 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) and shipping to Washington DC.
Solicitation Number: TIRWR-10-Q-00023
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Office: Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Location: Field Operations Branch Western (OS:A:P:B:W)
***
Contracting Office Address:
Internal Revenue Service OS:A:P:B:W
Office of Business Operations
1301 Clay Street, Suite 810S
Oakland, CA 94612 -5217
Getting ready for the legalization of Pot, I guess - getting ready to collect those taxes.
Showing posts with label Asset Forfeiture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asset Forfeiture. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Arcata resident sentenced for marijuana grow, forfeits cash
☛TS Arcata resident sentenced for marijuana grow
On Wednesday, a Humboldt County Superior Court judge sentenced 38-year-old Arcata resident Jeremy Bensen to 270 days in jail for the cultivation of marijuana and providing false information to commit a fraud, the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office reported Thursday.
According to information from the District Attorney's Office, in December 2007, Humboldt County Drug Task Force agents found two properties under Bensen's name that were drawing abnormally high amounts of electricity, leading them to serve search warrants at both properties.
On Dec. 18, 2007, while serving a warrant at 2559 Baldwin St. in Arcata, agents reportedly found 89 marijuana plants with processed marijuana, a scale and $1,640 in cash.
During one nine-month period, that property drew between 3,800 and 6,000 kilowatt hours, the District Attorney's Office reported.
At another property on 3178 Pigeon Point Rd. in Eureka, agents reportedly located 228 plants, processed marijuana and $3,600 in cash.
During a six month period, agents learned the Eureka property drew between 5,700 and 7,800 kilowatt hours of electricity.
An additional 40-acre property in the Pilot Rock area of Southern Humboldt was searched, yielding around 100 growing marijuana plants.
Agents located bank records showing $101,590 had been deposited in cash during 2006, and $157,170 was deposited over the following year. A number of those deposits, the office reported, were structured in a way to avoid reporting large cash deposits.
In addition to the jail sentence, Bensen forfeited the money seized in the search warrants.
Deputy District Attorney Maggie Fleming argued against Bensen, who was represented by defense attorney Mark Harris..
On Wednesday, a Humboldt County Superior Court judge sentenced 38-year-old Arcata resident Jeremy Bensen to 270 days in jail for the cultivation of marijuana and providing false information to commit a fraud, the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office reported Thursday.
According to information from the District Attorney's Office, in December 2007, Humboldt County Drug Task Force agents found two properties under Bensen's name that were drawing abnormally high amounts of electricity, leading them to serve search warrants at both properties.
On Dec. 18, 2007, while serving a warrant at 2559 Baldwin St. in Arcata, agents reportedly found 89 marijuana plants with processed marijuana, a scale and $1,640 in cash.
During one nine-month period, that property drew between 3,800 and 6,000 kilowatt hours, the District Attorney's Office reported.
At another property on 3178 Pigeon Point Rd. in Eureka, agents reportedly located 228 plants, processed marijuana and $3,600 in cash.
During a six month period, agents learned the Eureka property drew between 5,700 and 7,800 kilowatt hours of electricity.
An additional 40-acre property in the Pilot Rock area of Southern Humboldt was searched, yielding around 100 growing marijuana plants.
Agents located bank records showing $101,590 had been deposited in cash during 2006, and $157,170 was deposited over the following year. A number of those deposits, the office reported, were structured in a way to avoid reporting large cash deposits.
In addition to the jail sentence, Bensen forfeited the money seized in the search warrants.
Deputy District Attorney Maggie Fleming argued against Bensen, who was represented by defense attorney Mark Harris..
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Are you ready for this?
The state's new medical marijuana guidelines will help bring more clarity to Proposition 215 cases, giving the county more tools in its struggle to curb abuse of the law, Humboldt County's district attorney said.
”There's some good stuff in there for us to efficiently punish people who are abusing the law,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said. “There are members of this community that are making money, that are benefiting from the laws and the people of this community, that are giving nothing back.”...
”Taxation -- that is very important to us. We've modified our investigation to do financial investigations,” he said.
By comparing assets and income, the county can weed out illegal growers from legitimate ones, he said.
”It gives us a weapon, I think, that we didn't have,” Gallegos said.
☛ TS DA compliments AG for clearing the haze around 215
Why don't you start with your buddy, Schectman, Mr. Gallegos.
”There's some good stuff in there for us to efficiently punish people who are abusing the law,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said. “There are members of this community that are making money, that are benefiting from the laws and the people of this community, that are giving nothing back.”...
”Taxation -- that is very important to us. We've modified our investigation to do financial investigations,” he said.
By comparing assets and income, the county can weed out illegal growers from legitimate ones, he said.
”It gives us a weapon, I think, that we didn't have,” Gallegos said.
☛ TS DA compliments AG for clearing the haze around 215
Why don't you start with your buddy, Schectman, Mr. Gallegos.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Southern Sweep Asset Forfeiture - right or wrong?
Given our system of 'innocent until proven guilty' how in the world did something like Asset Forfeiture become legal? Or more specifically, taking someone's property before they have been, charged, tried and found guilty. In this case, it is land that is being seized. In cases elsewhere it is boats and planes and automobiles. And if the person is then found to be innocent of all charges, getting the property back is nearly impossible. 60 Minutes has covered this. On the other hand, large scale pot growers certainly knew the ground rules - and took the risk. Now they pay the price.
Today's story: ☛ TS Feds move forward with land forfeitures
But - Guilty or not - it is wrong to seize the property until after they have been convicted. What do you think?
Related:
☛ ER Pot sweep costs DOJ $347,000
Other discussion"
At Eric's SoHum Parlance: Feds moving forward on three of the forfeiture actions
Today's story: ☛ TS Feds move forward with land forfeitures
When contacted by the Times-Standard earlier this month, the FBI said no criminal charges had been filed as a result of the sweep. Calls to the FBI on Tuesday were not returned by deadline.
According to United States Code, any properties used to manufacture a controlled substance are subject to forfeiture. In this case, because the U.S. Attorney's Office is seeking civil forfeitures, the land could be forfeited without convictions or even criminal charges being filed against the land owners.
While initial complaints filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office with the Humboldt County Recorder's Office list a total of seven properties, only three of those were included in the Notice of Forfeiture Action filed last week.
But - Guilty or not - it is wrong to seize the property until after they have been convicted. What do you think?
Related:
☛ ER Pot sweep costs DOJ $347,000
Other discussion"
At Eric's SoHum Parlance: Feds moving forward on three of the forfeiture actions
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Asset Forfeiture
TS U.S. attorney files complaints for forfeiture against raided properties
The government is seeking the forfeiture of several Southern Humboldt and Mendocino properties which were the subject of federal marijuana raids last week.
U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello filed two complaints for forfeiture identifying more than 20 parcels where federal agents reportedly found nearly 80 marijuana gardens and more than 12,000 plants during what they dubbed “Operation Southern Sweep.” ...a total of seven properties, three of which can reportedly be traced to an individual identified as Robert Juan.
...The complaints first reported in the North Coast Journal were filed with the Humboldt County Recorder's Office last week and list a total of seven properties, three of which can reportedly be traced to an individual identified as Robert Juan....
The two largest holdings identified in the complaints were listed as reportedly belonging to Juan and Lost Paradise Land Corp. Juan is identified the corporation's president in other documents filed with the county....
A third property identified in the complaint spanned two parcels in Mendocino County where agents reported finding a greenhouse with 164 marijuana plants, in addition to a variety of growing materials and an ATV, according to the complaint.
The complaint lists the alleged property owners as Paul Sayers and Graeson Prescott, who is listed in other county documents as Lost Paradise Land Corp.'s treasurer.
The other complaint cites four Southern Humboldt County properties for forfeiture, all of which were reportedly home to substantially smaller growing operations.
A home on the 1500 block of Briceland Thorn Road in Whitethorn, which the complaint states is allegedly owned by Donovan and Lynne Henry, reportedly had two separate gardens, according to the documents....
...The complaint also states that a home on the 400 block of Par Avenue in Redway is reportedly owned by the Fowler Family Trust. There, agents allegedly found a marijuana garden with almost 150 plants growing under four lights, in addition to 15 pounds of processed marijuana found in a bedroom, according to the complaint.
Juan's name again came up in the fourth complaint, which alleges he co-owns a property in the 3600 block of Miranda's Thomas Road with Alishia Stone. On that property, the complaint states agents allegedly found nearly 140 plants growing in three different structures.
The last property listed in the complaint was in the 400 block of Redway's Eel River Lane, which allegedly contained a green house with about 400 marijuana plants growing under 12 lights, some of which the complaint states were motorized to move back and forth over the plant canopy....
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Missing in action, AGAIN
From the day he took office, Gallegos has missed important meetings, and doesn't attend meetings he is supposed to be an key player in. The kinds of things that would get any ordinary person fired. When the Code Enforcement Task Force was set up, Gallegos was supposed to be an integral part of it. How many meetings has he attended, if any? Has he sent a representative?
It is the District Attorney's job to attend these kinds of meetings. One reason why most DAs try very few cases, if any.
He was available to go to the meeting in Garberville in the beginning and make some noise about his "concerns" that officers were armed.
Now the DA is an integral part of this since his office cross- deputizes the inspectors and is supposed to be overseeing all of this. People are missing what his role is in this, and its importance.
But he wasn't at Friday's meeting, nor the previous Friday's meeting. Now the Task Force has had to vote to extend its time limit in hopes of getting the DA to attend - this article tells the story:
The Humboldt County Code Enforcement Task Force has taken the first steps toward compiling a report to the board of supervisors, but it may not be done until late September.
The members voted unanimously Friday to ask the board to extend of the task force and the moratorium on inspection warrants until Sept. 26.
The extension will allow more time to arrange a session with Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. Gallegos, as part of the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee, had been invited to appear before the task force at Friday's meeting, but was not present.
Second District Supervisor Johanna Rodoni suggested -- and the balance of the task force agreed -- that a second, strong invitation be issued to the district attorney.
”I think we need to emphasize they're a critical piece of this,” she said.
Part of that urgency deals with which county department will house the code enforcement unit and the district attorney's concerns over granting police powers to Code Enforcement Unit officers.
The task force scheduled its next meeting for the afternoon of July 9 from 1:30 to 4 p.m. to better accommodate Gallegos' schedule....
◼ Some interesting points there - In Friday's meeting, County Counsel Wendy Chaitin noted that Gallegos had come to her in January expressing his "concerns. (laughable as it might be in light of his recent attempts to acquire semi-automatic AR-15 rifles, and set up his own armed asset forfeiture team, but, not to digress...).
Josh Hedlund also spoke at Friday's meeting about the January 3rd raid on his Vilica Properties.
January - coincidences? Schectman, Paul, Vilica, Hedlund, code raids, concerns. Maybe. Dots?
It is the District Attorney's job to attend these kinds of meetings. One reason why most DAs try very few cases, if any.
He was available to go to the meeting in Garberville in the beginning and make some noise about his "concerns" that officers were armed.
Now the DA is an integral part of this since his office cross- deputizes the inspectors and is supposed to be overseeing all of this. People are missing what his role is in this, and its importance.
But he wasn't at Friday's meeting, nor the previous Friday's meeting. Now the Task Force has had to vote to extend its time limit in hopes of getting the DA to attend - this article tells the story:
The Humboldt County Code Enforcement Task Force has taken the first steps toward compiling a report to the board of supervisors, but it may not be done until late September.
The members voted unanimously Friday to ask the board to extend of the task force and the moratorium on inspection warrants until Sept. 26.
The extension will allow more time to arrange a session with Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. Gallegos, as part of the Code Enforcement Unit Oversight Committee, had been invited to appear before the task force at Friday's meeting, but was not present.
Second District Supervisor Johanna Rodoni suggested -- and the balance of the task force agreed -- that a second, strong invitation be issued to the district attorney.
”I think we need to emphasize they're a critical piece of this,” she said.
Part of that urgency deals with which county department will house the code enforcement unit and the district attorney's concerns over granting police powers to Code Enforcement Unit officers.
The task force scheduled its next meeting for the afternoon of July 9 from 1:30 to 4 p.m. to better accommodate Gallegos' schedule....
◼ Some interesting points there - In Friday's meeting, County Counsel Wendy Chaitin noted that Gallegos had come to her in January expressing his "concerns. (laughable as it might be in light of his recent attempts to acquire semi-automatic AR-15 rifles, and set up his own armed asset forfeiture team, but, not to digress...).
Josh Hedlund also spoke at Friday's meeting about the January 3rd raid on his Vilica Properties.
January - coincidences? Schectman, Paul, Vilica, Hedlund, code raids, concerns. Maybe. Dots?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Today's Tomorrow's Consent Calendar
Item D-7 and D-8
District Attorney
7. Amendment of Lease at 712 Fourth Street for the Victim Witness Office (State Grant Funds).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the chairperson to execute the Second Amendment to Lease for property at 712 Fourth Street; Direct the Clerk of the Board to return one executed amendment to Real Property for transmittal to Lessor.
8. Grant Application for Vertical Prosecution Block Program - FY 2008-09, State of California, Office of Emergency Services, in the amount of $146,981 (State OES Funds - VPBP)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors 1) allow the District Attorney to submit application; and 2) authorize the Chair to execute continuation application for Vertical Prosecution funding, Grant Award Face Sheet (OES A301) and Certificate of Assurance of Compliance. (No impact to the General Fund).
***
At least he is applying for it. But, does he really have a "Vertical Child Abuse Prosecutor?" And if so, who is it? He claims Maggie Fleming has been the designee since 1994.
So-o-o-o, what happened to Jeffrey "You'Go'Free.com: Schwartz? The One who got a BIG FAT RAISEbecause he had assumed that position?
Sources say - There was no 'Vertical Prosecutor" until October of 1996. there were people assigned to the unit, it was shared by Felony Prosecutors like Rob Wade, Allison Jackson and Maggie Flemming back then, but everyone in the office shared in the duties.
Between October of 96 and February 97 Jeannie Tunnison-Campbell became the Vertical Prosecutor.
Then it was Allison Jackson and Peter Martin.
Then Peter Martin left and it was Allison Jackson and Andrew Isaac.
Then Gallegos fired Allison Jackson and it was Andrew Isaac, alone.
Then Gallegos threw Maggie Flemming into that position.
Then he handed it over to "Yougofree.com" - who as far as anyone can tell never took a case to trial.
Now apparently, he has put newcomer Kelly Neel into that position, within a year of when she was hired.
What is a "Vertical Prosecutor" you ask? It is simply, one prosecutor assigned to see the case all the way through, from start to finish, so it isn't handed off from one person to another, so they don't have to start from scratch and wing it through a prosecution. It is supposed to provide for a higher grade of prosecution, it gives the victims one person to have to deal with, to learn to trust, and to count on to know the ins and outs of the case.
It is important enough that grants are provided to ensure that that person has adequate time to prepare and concentrate on that case, it is supposed to eliminate or lighten the other cases they are assigned to. That means they are NOT assigned to other cases such as Asset Forfeiture, Murders, Drug cases, or 'buckets' the random assignments necessitated by low staffing.
The DA's Office gets grants to provide for Vertical Domestic Violence Prosecutors and Vertical Child Abuse Prosecutors. When Gallegos signs his name to these grant applications he is saying that he has a qualified dedicated person assigned to these positions. And the CAST stats and records of cases taken to trail should match up.
Read the Grant App - And look at those numbers! WOW! They don't add up, however. Not to the numbers that have already been released, (things like the number of referrals, interviews and cases filed - without the CAST stats it is impossible to gauge the accuracy of this application) - and not to the numbers Gallegos himself has stated on the record (things like the number of cases each prosecutor is carrying as a load, is assigned to each year.) For example he says here that the average caseload for a non-vertical prosecutor in 2007 was 85 per felony attorney.... Yet Gallegos has told the media that the prosecutors handle some 550 cases a year. And that was BEFORE he "lost" a bunch more prosecutors.
What is the penalty to the County if Gallegos isn't giving accurate information on his grant apps, especially with regards to the names and actuality of the Vertical Prosecutors, of a Vertical Prosecution Program, both in this and the Domestic Violence Program grants? Does the County have to pay back the funds?
And does anyone care?
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST re: CAST
District Attorney
7. Amendment of Lease at 712 Fourth Street for the Victim Witness Office (State Grant Funds).
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors approve and authorize the chairperson to execute the Second Amendment to Lease for property at 712 Fourth Street; Direct the Clerk of the Board to return one executed amendment to Real Property for transmittal to Lessor.
8. Grant Application for Vertical Prosecution Block Program - FY 2008-09, State of California, Office of Emergency Services, in the amount of $146,981 (State OES Funds - VPBP)
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Supervisors 1) allow the District Attorney to submit application; and 2) authorize the Chair to execute continuation application for Vertical Prosecution funding, Grant Award Face Sheet (OES A301) and Certificate of Assurance of Compliance. (No impact to the General Fund).
***
At least he is applying for it. But, does he really have a "Vertical Child Abuse Prosecutor?" And if so, who is it? He claims Maggie Fleming has been the designee since 1994.
So-o-o-o, what happened to Jeffrey "You'Go'Free.com: Schwartz? The One who got a BIG FAT RAISEbecause he had assumed that position?
Sources say - There was no 'Vertical Prosecutor" until October of 1996. there were people assigned to the unit, it was shared by Felony Prosecutors like Rob Wade, Allison Jackson and Maggie Flemming back then, but everyone in the office shared in the duties.
Between October of 96 and February 97 Jeannie Tunnison-Campbell became the Vertical Prosecutor.
Then it was Allison Jackson and Peter Martin.
Then Peter Martin left and it was Allison Jackson and Andrew Isaac.
Then Gallegos fired Allison Jackson and it was Andrew Isaac, alone.
Then Gallegos threw Maggie Flemming into that position.
Then he handed it over to "Yougofree.com" - who as far as anyone can tell never took a case to trial.
Now apparently, he has put newcomer Kelly Neel into that position, within a year of when she was hired.
What is a "Vertical Prosecutor" you ask? It is simply, one prosecutor assigned to see the case all the way through, from start to finish, so it isn't handed off from one person to another, so they don't have to start from scratch and wing it through a prosecution. It is supposed to provide for a higher grade of prosecution, it gives the victims one person to have to deal with, to learn to trust, and to count on to know the ins and outs of the case.
It is important enough that grants are provided to ensure that that person has adequate time to prepare and concentrate on that case, it is supposed to eliminate or lighten the other cases they are assigned to. That means they are NOT assigned to other cases such as Asset Forfeiture, Murders, Drug cases, or 'buckets' the random assignments necessitated by low staffing.
The DA's Office gets grants to provide for Vertical Domestic Violence Prosecutors and Vertical Child Abuse Prosecutors. When Gallegos signs his name to these grant applications he is saying that he has a qualified dedicated person assigned to these positions. And the CAST stats and records of cases taken to trail should match up.
Read the Grant App - And look at those numbers! WOW! They don't add up, however. Not to the numbers that have already been released, (things like the number of referrals, interviews and cases filed - without the CAST stats it is impossible to gauge the accuracy of this application) - and not to the numbers Gallegos himself has stated on the record (things like the number of cases each prosecutor is carrying as a load, is assigned to each year.) For example he says here that the average caseload for a non-vertical prosecutor in 2007 was 85 per felony attorney.... Yet Gallegos has told the media that the prosecutors handle some 550 cases a year. And that was BEFORE he "lost" a bunch more prosecutors.
What is the penalty to the County if Gallegos isn't giving accurate information on his grant apps, especially with regards to the names and actuality of the Vertical Prosecutors, of a Vertical Prosecution Program, both in this and the Domestic Violence Program grants? Does the County have to pay back the funds?
And does anyone care?
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST re: CAST
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Assault Teams and Code Enforcement?
The DA who plans to use his ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS to buy semiautomatic weapons (AR-15s) and outfit his investigators with assault team gear to go with the weapons now wants the CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS to be under his control?
Isn't that the only conclusion you can reach after reading today's article? At first it looks like he is trying to disassociate from the Code Enforcement guys following the contentious upheaval of the past couple of weeks, but read all the way through...
Remember that? - The controversy stemmed from a number of residents who say that county code enforcers are collaborating with law enforcement and using building code inspections to obtain access to private property and go after marijuana growers.
If Gallegos wants to arm his regular investigators with semi-automatic weapons to go on ASSET FORFEITURE RAIDS, won't the Code Enforcement Team be invaluable? And will they then be armed with AR-15s?
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he has rescinded the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ police powers granted under his authority, but county staff said the move doesn’t stick.
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
...Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
...Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.....
Just take a look at what he has done to the other programs under his control and you';ll have a pretty good idea what he can do to this one.
Isn't that the only conclusion you can reach after reading today's article? At first it looks like he is trying to disassociate from the Code Enforcement guys following the contentious upheaval of the past couple of weeks, but read all the way through...
Remember that? - The controversy stemmed from a number of residents who say that county code enforcers are collaborating with law enforcement and using building code inspections to obtain access to private property and go after marijuana growers.
If Gallegos wants to arm his regular investigators with semi-automatic weapons to go on ASSET FORFEITURE RAIDS, won't the Code Enforcement Team be invaluable? And will they then be armed with AR-15s?
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he has rescinded the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ police powers granted under his authority, but county staff said the move doesn’t stick.
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
...Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
...Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.....
Just take a look at what he has done to the other programs under his control and you';ll have a pretty good idea what he can do to this one.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
What, no DA asset forfeiture assault team?
ER - Deputies, officers raid two locations in Southern Humboldt
On Wednesday evening, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Humboldt County Code Enforcement Unit and Humboldt County Drug Task Force in serving a search warrant on a parcel of property located off Woods Ranch in Redway.
TS - Redway pot busts net pot plants, assault rifles More than 3,500 marijuana plants, three assault rifles, two diesel generators, 80 pounds of pot and two quad runners were seized from two pieces of property in Redway earlier this week, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office said today.
Search warrants were served on two parcels of property off Woods Ranch on Monday and Tuesday by the Sheriff's Office, the Humboldt County Code Enforcement Unit and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.
No suspects were at the property searched on Monday, but a suspect has been identified through evidence found on the property, the Sheriff's Office said in a statement. An arrest warrant for marijuana cultivation, possession for sales of marijuana and possession of LSD will be requested through the Humboldt County District Attorney.
Officers seized 2,570 growing marijuana plants that ranged in size from 1 inch to 4 feet from three structures. They also seized three assault rifles and a small amount of LSD from the residence on the property. Lastly officers seized two quad runners and a 70-kilowatt diesel generator that was supplying power to the indoor pot growing operation.
On Tuesday, law enforcement personnel served another search warrant at another parcel of property off Woods Ranch. They seized 1,251 growing marijuana plants that ranged in size from 1 inch to 4 feet from four structures on the property. Officers also seized a 15 kilowatt diesel generator that was supplying power to an indoor growing operation and 80 pounds of dried pot on the property.
Two Redway men were arrested on charges of cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sales. David Shriver, 36, posted bail, and Eric Eastridge, 31, is still in custody and bail has been set at $30,000.
On Wednesday evening, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office was assisted by the Humboldt County Code Enforcement Unit and Humboldt County Drug Task Force in serving a search warrant on a parcel of property located off Woods Ranch in Redway.
TS - Redway pot busts net pot plants, assault rifles More than 3,500 marijuana plants, three assault rifles, two diesel generators, 80 pounds of pot and two quad runners were seized from two pieces of property in Redway earlier this week, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office said today.
Search warrants were served on two parcels of property off Woods Ranch on Monday and Tuesday by the Sheriff's Office, the Humboldt County Code Enforcement Unit and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.
No suspects were at the property searched on Monday, but a suspect has been identified through evidence found on the property, the Sheriff's Office said in a statement. An arrest warrant for marijuana cultivation, possession for sales of marijuana and possession of LSD will be requested through the Humboldt County District Attorney.
Officers seized 2,570 growing marijuana plants that ranged in size from 1 inch to 4 feet from three structures. They also seized three assault rifles and a small amount of LSD from the residence on the property. Lastly officers seized two quad runners and a 70-kilowatt diesel generator that was supplying power to the indoor pot growing operation.
On Tuesday, law enforcement personnel served another search warrant at another parcel of property off Woods Ranch. They seized 1,251 growing marijuana plants that ranged in size from 1 inch to 4 feet from four structures on the property. Officers also seized a 15 kilowatt diesel generator that was supplying power to an indoor growing operation and 80 pounds of dried pot on the property.
Two Redway men were arrested on charges of cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sales. David Shriver, 36, posted bail, and Eric Eastridge, 31, is still in custody and bail has been set at $30,000.
Friday, September 07, 2007
She has a point
I don't know about her statistics, but the fact that the weapons the DA investigators already carry working perfectly well when needed is a good one.
Dear Editor,
Regarding your article in the Sept. 1 paper titled “DA Gallegos can get his guns,” I think the “kill rate” (55 percent) by Eureka police shows the armament they have works just fine. Don’t you?
I, for one, would rather see the money spent on “nonlethal” weapons, which appear to be basically nonexistent to the Eureka Police Department.
Janet Busch
Fortuna
You just have to wonder - why does Paul want those weapons? Is it because Hislop wants them, and Paul can't say no? Is that the same reason he keeps jumping his new hires up the salary ladder? He's just a guy who can't say "No!"
Or is it the opposite - he wants them so bad because he was told "No."?
Does he really want in on the asset forfeiture raids because his department gets a higher payout if they conduct the raid than if they just tag along? It would seem like political suicide because in asset forfeiture raids he is targeting the very people who gave him barrels of cash in his elections. But he's shown a willingness to corrupt the system to gather cash to pay Cotchett to go after Palco - is that in the twisted plan?
Does it make sense to anybody? Why the DA wants to set up an assault team?
Dear Editor,
Regarding your article in the Sept. 1 paper titled “DA Gallegos can get his guns,” I think the “kill rate” (55 percent) by Eureka police shows the armament they have works just fine. Don’t you?
I, for one, would rather see the money spent on “nonlethal” weapons, which appear to be basically nonexistent to the Eureka Police Department.
Janet Busch
Fortuna
You just have to wonder - why does Paul want those weapons? Is it because Hislop wants them, and Paul can't say no? Is that the same reason he keeps jumping his new hires up the salary ladder? He's just a guy who can't say "No!"
Or is it the opposite - he wants them so bad because he was told "No."?
Does he really want in on the asset forfeiture raids because his department gets a higher payout if they conduct the raid than if they just tag along? It would seem like political suicide because in asset forfeiture raids he is targeting the very people who gave him barrels of cash in his elections. But he's shown a willingness to corrupt the system to gather cash to pay Cotchett to go after Palco - is that in the twisted plan?
Does it make sense to anybody? Why the DA wants to set up an assault team?
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Paul Gallegos' Asset Forfeiture Team will be armed with AR-15s and hollow point bullets
.
He's an elected official. He's untouchable. No one can stop him.
DA Gallegos can get his guns
Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus confirmed Friday that District Attorney Paul Gallegos had satisfied her office’s requirements in his bid to arm his investigators with semiautomatic rifles.
“Technically, I guess he’s OK with the use-of-force policy,” Nickolaus said by phone late Friday. “Financially, he has the money from the asset forfeiture account. So it’s really a judgment call for him whether or not he wants to do this.”
But Nickolaus stopped short of endorsing the plan.
“I still have my concerns over the potential for conflict of interest and liability exposure for the county, and I’m still not convinced that with this direction (investigators) will be able to maintain their independent perspective if one of their own is involved in a critical incident,” she said.
“But he can do what he wants. He knows how I feel about it, and he has completed the things I’ve asked him to complete.”
The controversy over the guns request began mid-May, after The Eureka Reporter learned that Gallegos’ seemingly routine allocation request for $58,462 in asset forfeiture funds was intended to outfit his eight investigators with AR-15 assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved the request March 6, but purchases were stopped midstream by Nickolaus in May over liability, scope of work and conflict-of-interest concerns.
Nickolaus said Friday she asked the DA to add a rifles section to his revised use-of-force policy and to provide assurances that investigators would receive appropriate training and would qualify before using the rifles.
She was still troubled, though, by the possibility of a conflict of interest, particularly when the District Attorney’s Office is called on to investigate incidents in which it has been involved.
“Having DA investigators on the front line would seem to present a serious conflict for the DA in conducting an unbiased and independent investigation of the facts,” Nickolaus said.
“It is still my opinion, and maybe it’s his opinion, too, that the DA’s investigative and prosecutorial authority is at its best when it is independent of other law enforcement agencies.”
Attempts to contact Gallegos after normal business hours Friday were unsuccessful.
In his initial request for funds, Gallegos said the expenses represented permissible uses of asset forfeiture trust funds, and if the request was not approved, his investigators would “continue to face compromising health and safety risks when responding to criminal matters due to lack of proper equipment and communication mediums.”
***
TS - DA force policy cleared by county administrator
You know. It really isn't funny.
More discussion on Eric's blog
but the defenders are on the Times Standard's comments trying to justify this. "oh it is so inportant for the DA's investigators to have guns so that they will be s-a-a-a-f-e.." Insanity.
He's an elected official. He's untouchable. No one can stop him.
DA Gallegos can get his guns
Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus confirmed Friday that District Attorney Paul Gallegos had satisfied her office’s requirements in his bid to arm his investigators with semiautomatic rifles.
“Technically, I guess he’s OK with the use-of-force policy,” Nickolaus said by phone late Friday. “Financially, he has the money from the asset forfeiture account. So it’s really a judgment call for him whether or not he wants to do this.”
But Nickolaus stopped short of endorsing the plan.
“I still have my concerns over the potential for conflict of interest and liability exposure for the county, and I’m still not convinced that with this direction (investigators) will be able to maintain their independent perspective if one of their own is involved in a critical incident,” she said.
“But he can do what he wants. He knows how I feel about it, and he has completed the things I’ve asked him to complete.”
The controversy over the guns request began mid-May, after The Eureka Reporter learned that Gallegos’ seemingly routine allocation request for $58,462 in asset forfeiture funds was intended to outfit his eight investigators with AR-15 assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors approved the request March 6, but purchases were stopped midstream by Nickolaus in May over liability, scope of work and conflict-of-interest concerns.
Nickolaus said Friday she asked the DA to add a rifles section to his revised use-of-force policy and to provide assurances that investigators would receive appropriate training and would qualify before using the rifles.
She was still troubled, though, by the possibility of a conflict of interest, particularly when the District Attorney’s Office is called on to investigate incidents in which it has been involved.
“Having DA investigators on the front line would seem to present a serious conflict for the DA in conducting an unbiased and independent investigation of the facts,” Nickolaus said.
“It is still my opinion, and maybe it’s his opinion, too, that the DA’s investigative and prosecutorial authority is at its best when it is independent of other law enforcement agencies.”
Attempts to contact Gallegos after normal business hours Friday were unsuccessful.
In his initial request for funds, Gallegos said the expenses represented permissible uses of asset forfeiture trust funds, and if the request was not approved, his investigators would “continue to face compromising health and safety risks when responding to criminal matters due to lack of proper equipment and communication mediums.”
***
TS - DA force policy cleared by county administrator
You know. It really isn't funny.
More discussion on Eric's blog
but the defenders are on the Times Standard's comments trying to justify this. "oh it is so inportant for the DA's investigators to have guns so that they will be s-a-a-a-f-e.." Insanity.
Monday, July 23, 2007
DA gun request still on hold
A Humboldt County District Attorney's Office request from May to purchase eight AR-15 assault rifles is still on hold, but a decision may be coming soon...
...The guns were part of an order that included protective vests, badges, fatigues and other police officer equipment. The money for the purchase comes from the District Attorney's Asset Forfeiture trust funds. Read the full story
For more info, click on the Gallegos/Assault Team, and Public Records labels/links below.
...The guns were part of an order that included protective vests, badges, fatigues and other police officer equipment. The money for the purchase comes from the District Attorney's Asset Forfeiture trust funds. Read the full story
For more info, click on the Gallegos/Assault Team, and Public Records labels/links below.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Gallegos' answers don't add up
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Asset forfeiture operations, investigations and gang and probation sweeps are among the explanations provided by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos for his proposed purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, currently waylaid by county administrators over liability and conflict-of-interest concerns.
But some of these explanations have raised more questions than they’ve answered, including why DA investigators would need heavier firepower than other law enforcement officers participating in the same operations.
Officials said Humboldt County Gang Task Force members conduct gang sweeps armed with standard-issue sidearms, and probation officers participating in the same sweeps carry no firearms at all.
In his initial Feb. 14 request for supplemental funds from the asset forfeiture trust fund managed by the California Attorney General’s Office, Gallegos said the purchase of unspecified clothing, safety equipment, portable radios, bullet-proof vests, rifles, a gun safe and other miscellaneous equipment would “directly contribute to further seizures and forfeitures by enhancing the district attorney’s current and future forfeiture operations and investigations.”
On May 15, when he was asked by The Eureka Reporter in what capacity investigators would use the gear, Gallegos did not mention asset forfeiture and said instead, “For investigations.”
He was asked the same question in various forms by Arcata Eye Editor Kevin Hoover during a radio interview Thursday, broadcast live on KHUM-FM, and Gallegos responded that the items would be used in a number of contexts, including in sweeps conducted by the Humboldt County Gang Task Force.
“They wouldn’t be wearing this stuff … on their everyday duties,” Hoover said. “You don’t go out in the world with assault rifles and vests on, the full regalia.”
“They would wear it whenever they are out doing things like gang task force sweeps,” Gallegos said, “all those sorts of things that they have to do. So absolutely they would.”
In the course of the KHUM interview, Gallegos twice mentioned the gang task force, a multi-agency group that conducts an average of two sweeps each year, according to Eureka Police Capt. Murl Harpham.
The task force had not conducted a sweep since September, Harpham said, until Friday, the day after the interview took place.
A news release issued Saturday by the Eureka Police Department reported the participation of the DA’s Office, and Harpham confirmed Monday that one DA investigator was present.
But during the sweep, rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise, were reportedly not in use by anyone.
“EPD officers just used standard sidearms,” said EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley, who went out with one of three teams during the sweep Friday. “I didn’t see anyone with a big gun.”
Brenda Godsey, public information officer for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, said the deputies who participated in the gang sweep also used standard sidearms, in this case .40-caliber Glocks.
“Gang task force sweeps are just knock-and-talks,” Harpham said. “That’s usually how they go. We don’t do the high-profile arrests. If we had someone that was highly dangerous, we wouldn’t use the gang task force to go after them. We’d use SWAT or the (Humboldt County) Drug Task Force.”
HCDTF Commander Jack Nelsen confirmed Monday that the DA’s Office also participates on the more active and heavily armed drug task force, but Nelsen said only one DA investigator was involved.
In the KHUM interview, Gallegos also mentioned probation sweeps, but Humboldt County Probation Division Director Bill Damiano said his officers, who participate in both gang and probation sweeps, do not carry firearms.
“We have an arming policy,” Damiano said Tuesday, “but we currently do not have any officers who have applied and qualified to carry firearms.”
Gallegos has maintained that the purpose of the equipment is to ensure the safety of his investigators.
“Our officers have to be adequately armed,” he told Hoover. “The hope is that they would never have to use them, but that doesn’t mean you don’t arm them.”
All five members of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors were questioned in an e-mail sent Thursday by The Eureka Reporter about whether they clearly understood from Gallegos’ original budget request that he planned to purchase semiautomatic rifles for each of his investigators and whether, knowing that now, they would support the expenditure of funds for this purpose.
Only 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist responded to the e-mail.
“The item on [the] consent calendar prepared and submitted by the district attorney and approved by the board was to authorize a supplemental transfer of funds for the purchase of safety-related equipment,” Geist wrote.
“The DA hired three investigators who needed supplies and safety gear, including firearms. The DA has sufficient funds to transfer from the Fixed Asset Account, and that action requires board approval. Our staff is responsible for processing requisitions, purchasing and ensuring that items authorized for purchase do not expose the county to unnecessary liability.
“While processing the requisition, a concern was raised due to the expansion of firearm (rifle) to include assault rifles. County staff is exercising due diligence in raising the question. The [County Administrative Officer] is scheduled to meet with the DA on the 30th of May to review the request and receive necessary clarifications.”
The second question Geist did not answer, stating that it presented a potential violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, possibly because a response to it by all five supervisors could be construed as an informal, undisclosed meeting held by elected officials.
But there was little danger of that.
E-mail receipts indicate Supervisor John Woolley opened the e-mail Thursday morning, and Roger Rodoni opened it Monday afternoon. Jimmy Smith deleted it Monday morning without having opened it, and as of press time Tuesday, Board Chairperson Bonnie Neely has taken no action on the e-mail at all.
None of the four has responded to the questions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Asset forfeiture operations, investigations and gang and probation sweeps are among the explanations provided by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos for his proposed purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, currently waylaid by county administrators over liability and conflict-of-interest concerns.
But some of these explanations have raised more questions than they’ve answered, including why DA investigators would need heavier firepower than other law enforcement officers participating in the same operations.
Officials said Humboldt County Gang Task Force members conduct gang sweeps armed with standard-issue sidearms, and probation officers participating in the same sweeps carry no firearms at all.
In his initial Feb. 14 request for supplemental funds from the asset forfeiture trust fund managed by the California Attorney General’s Office, Gallegos said the purchase of unspecified clothing, safety equipment, portable radios, bullet-proof vests, rifles, a gun safe and other miscellaneous equipment would “directly contribute to further seizures and forfeitures by enhancing the district attorney’s current and future forfeiture operations and investigations.”
On May 15, when he was asked by The Eureka Reporter in what capacity investigators would use the gear, Gallegos did not mention asset forfeiture and said instead, “For investigations.”
He was asked the same question in various forms by Arcata Eye Editor Kevin Hoover during a radio interview Thursday, broadcast live on KHUM-FM, and Gallegos responded that the items would be used in a number of contexts, including in sweeps conducted by the Humboldt County Gang Task Force.
“They wouldn’t be wearing this stuff … on their everyday duties,” Hoover said. “You don’t go out in the world with assault rifles and vests on, the full regalia.”
“They would wear it whenever they are out doing things like gang task force sweeps,” Gallegos said, “all those sorts of things that they have to do. So absolutely they would.”
In the course of the KHUM interview, Gallegos twice mentioned the gang task force, a multi-agency group that conducts an average of two sweeps each year, according to Eureka Police Capt. Murl Harpham.
The task force had not conducted a sweep since September, Harpham said, until Friday, the day after the interview took place.
A news release issued Saturday by the Eureka Police Department reported the participation of the DA’s Office, and Harpham confirmed Monday that one DA investigator was present.
But during the sweep, rifles, semiautomatic or otherwise, were reportedly not in use by anyone.
“EPD officers just used standard sidearms,” said EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley, who went out with one of three teams during the sweep Friday. “I didn’t see anyone with a big gun.”
Brenda Godsey, public information officer for the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, said the deputies who participated in the gang sweep also used standard sidearms, in this case .40-caliber Glocks.
“Gang task force sweeps are just knock-and-talks,” Harpham said. “That’s usually how they go. We don’t do the high-profile arrests. If we had someone that was highly dangerous, we wouldn’t use the gang task force to go after them. We’d use SWAT or the (Humboldt County) Drug Task Force.”
HCDTF Commander Jack Nelsen confirmed Monday that the DA’s Office also participates on the more active and heavily armed drug task force, but Nelsen said only one DA investigator was involved.
In the KHUM interview, Gallegos also mentioned probation sweeps, but Humboldt County Probation Division Director Bill Damiano said his officers, who participate in both gang and probation sweeps, do not carry firearms.
“We have an arming policy,” Damiano said Tuesday, “but we currently do not have any officers who have applied and qualified to carry firearms.”
Gallegos has maintained that the purpose of the equipment is to ensure the safety of his investigators.
“Our officers have to be adequately armed,” he told Hoover. “The hope is that they would never have to use them, but that doesn’t mean you don’t arm them.”
All five members of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors were questioned in an e-mail sent Thursday by The Eureka Reporter about whether they clearly understood from Gallegos’ original budget request that he planned to purchase semiautomatic rifles for each of his investigators and whether, knowing that now, they would support the expenditure of funds for this purpose.
Only 5th District Supervisor Jill Geist responded to the e-mail.
“The item on [the] consent calendar prepared and submitted by the district attorney and approved by the board was to authorize a supplemental transfer of funds for the purchase of safety-related equipment,” Geist wrote.
“The DA hired three investigators who needed supplies and safety gear, including firearms. The DA has sufficient funds to transfer from the Fixed Asset Account, and that action requires board approval. Our staff is responsible for processing requisitions, purchasing and ensuring that items authorized for purchase do not expose the county to unnecessary liability.
“While processing the requisition, a concern was raised due to the expansion of firearm (rifle) to include assault rifles. County staff is exercising due diligence in raising the question. The [County Administrative Officer] is scheduled to meet with the DA on the 30th of May to review the request and receive necessary clarifications.”
The second question Geist did not answer, stating that it presented a potential violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, possibly because a response to it by all five supervisors could be construed as an informal, undisclosed meeting held by elected officials.
But there was little danger of that.
E-mail receipts indicate Supervisor John Woolley opened the e-mail Thursday morning, and Roger Rodoni opened it Monday afternoon. Jimmy Smith deleted it Monday morning without having opened it, and as of press time Tuesday, Board Chairperson Bonnie Neely has taken no action on the e-mail at all.
None of the four has responded to the questions.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Every DA needs his own personal ASSAULT FORCE
Run! Shannon, Run! The DA's coming after all you vigilantes and anarchists. If you thought Gallegos' plagiarized My Word was bizarre, wait til you read this.
Has Paul Gallegos lost his mind? It's one thing to spend your grant money buying 'Blackberries' for your investigators, it's quite another thing to be setting up your own personal assault force.
I can't wait to see the spin on this one.
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is spending more than $18,000 for semiautomatic rifles — and county officials want to know why.
The request was made in a supplemental budget allocation approved March 6 by the Board of Supervisors for a general list of items commonly used by all law enforcement agencies.
Gallegos requested money from asset forfeiture funds to buy DA investigators “rifles,” “clothing,” “safety equipment” and other miscellaneous items, but several county officials expressed surprise when they learned that the money was intended for eight AR-15 assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.
Information obtained by The Eureka Reporter under the California Public Records Act indicates that some of the money has already been spent, but funds for the AR-15s and a gun safe were held up by County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who sent an e-mail letter to Gallegos questioning the need for the purchases.
The letter from Nickolaus, dated May 10, stated in part, “After quizzing my staff, I am concerned about why DA investigators want to arm themselves with automatic or semiautomatic assault rifles. I hear that (DA’s Office Chief Investigator) Mike Hislop said that they are interested in being part of the security plan and covering the second floor (of the Courthouse, where courtrooms are located). I have also heard that there is an interest in backing up (the Eureka Police Department) and even providing perimeter security.”
Nickolaus continued, “While having backup is usually a good thing, I think this may be outside their course and scope of work, as DA investigators. Plus, doesn’t it create a conflict if the DA investigators are at the scene of a standoff, hostage situation or whatever? How can you investigate something you were a part of?”
Purchase requisitions for the eight-person investigations unit included one 42-gun safe with an electronic lock and dehumidifier at $3,619.31, eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles at $1,920 each, 10 boxes of .223-caliber hollow-point bullets at $198.50 a box, eight sets of body armor at $550 each, eight tactical vests at $100 each, 16 pairs of tan double-front Carhartt pants at $45 each, eight black parkas at $188 each, 16 “DA Investigator” patches for the parkas at $8 each, a sewing and tailoring charge for the parkas of $27.50, eight short-sleeved polo shirts at $34 each, eight long-sleeved polo shirts at $26 each and an embroidery and lettering charge for the shirts of $520.
But DA investigators may be all dressed up with nowhere to go.
The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office’s Strategic Enforcement Team, a 14-member special weapons and tactics team equivalent, currently operates out of the first floor of the Humboldt County Courthouse, with the DA’s Office and its investigators located on the fourth floor of the same building.
Seven blocks away is the headquarters for the EPD’s 13-member SWAT Team, a unit supported by an additional 13 patrol rifle officers who are trained in and armed with augmented weaponry, according to EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley.
EPD Chief Garr Nielsen said Tuesday his department had not entered into any agreement with the DA’s Office for SWAT support to the EPD.
“I had a discussion with Hislop, during which he informed me that he was in the process of equipping his investigators with tactical equipment and that they would be available to assist EPD if needed,” Nielsen stated via e-mail.
“(Hislop) specifically mentioned being able to help us out with some of our drug sweeps. We did not discuss nor agree upon them assuming a supporting role to EPD in SWAT situations. We currently have an agreement with the Sheriff’s Office to back each other up for SWAT. SWAT support entails training together regularly in addition to formal agreements and established protocols, none of which have we discussed with the District Attorney’s Office.”
Numerous law enforcement agencies within California were contacted and asked if their DA investigators were armed with tactical weaponry. Even in much larger jurisdictions, the answer was almost always no.
In Santa Clara County, for example, which boasts a population more than 10 times that of Humboldt County, Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Sgt. Ed Wise said he could not recall a single instance when a DA investigator participated in a tactical situation.
But Gallegos said DA investigators frequently have tactical weapons, and Tim Kiely, chief investigator for the Mendocino County DA’s Office, concurred.
Kiely said his office currently has two semiautomatic weapons, although they are in the process of selling them at the request of the DA. In an informal survey he conducted of approximately 25 counties, he said more than half the DA Offices that responded had semi- or fully automatic weapons.
Gallegos said he didn’t know who had heavy weapons and who didn’t, “but I know I have guys who are going out there, and I want to make sure they are adequately protected.”
Supervisor Jill Geist brought the motion in March to adopt the supplemental budget and reiterated Tuesday that all law enforcement personnel should be protected.
“That investigators have firearms is very common,” Geist said. “That they have adequate body protection is also very common and very appropriate. I think it’s the scale of it that we’re talking about here, the level of armament involved.
“The list of items caught us a little flat-footed, to say the least,” she said. “While (Gallegos) may assert this is very common, this is not something I’m familiar with.”
According to Kim Kerr, Humboldt County risk manager and deputy CAO, the paperwork has been processed for all of the items except the assault rifles and the safe. Some of the purchases may already have been received.
Kerr stated Tuesday, “As of now, the rifles and gun safe request is on hold until the District Attorney’s Office responds to (Nickolaus’) e-mail request for information. Depending upon the response, then there will be a determination to purchase the rifles and safe or not.”
Gallegos said he had not yet seen the May 10 e-mail from Nickolaus, but would look at it to see what concerns she may have.
In it, Nickolaus asked Gallegos, “Does the DA’s office have a use-of-force policy, and/or training programs or policies for any of this stuff? Would they be working out of class? There are many questions, and I need answers before I can approve these purchases.”
In his initial request, Gallegos said the expenses represented permissible uses of asset forfeiture trust funds, and if the request was not approved, his staff would “continue to face compromising health and safety risks when responding to criminal matters due to lack of proper equipment and communication mediums.”
5/16/2007
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007
Consent Calendar Item c-5
District Attorney
5. Supplemental Budget in District Attorney's Budget Unit 1100-205, in the amount of $58,462.00 and Establish Fixed Assets Accounts (Fund 3921 - Asset Forfeiture)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the supplemental budget for the purchase of safety equipment, firearms, radios, cellular phones , evidence tracking system and supplies to be used in support of law enforcement purposes that may result in further seizures and forfeitures for our District Attorney Investigative and Prosecutor Staff.
6. Advance Step Appointment for Wayne Cox, Investigator (District Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and Advance Step appointment for Wayne Cox, Investigator for the District Attorney's Office to Step E, Effective February 13, 2007
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
Update:
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Has Paul Gallegos lost his mind? It's one thing to spend your grant money buying 'Blackberries' for your investigators, it's quite another thing to be setting up your own personal assault force.
I can't wait to see the spin on this one.
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is spending more than $18,000 for semiautomatic rifles — and county officials want to know why.
The request was made in a supplemental budget allocation approved March 6 by the Board of Supervisors for a general list of items commonly used by all law enforcement agencies.
Gallegos requested money from asset forfeiture funds to buy DA investigators “rifles,” “clothing,” “safety equipment” and other miscellaneous items, but several county officials expressed surprise when they learned that the money was intended for eight AR-15 assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.
Information obtained by The Eureka Reporter under the California Public Records Act indicates that some of the money has already been spent, but funds for the AR-15s and a gun safe were held up by County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who sent an e-mail letter to Gallegos questioning the need for the purchases.
The letter from Nickolaus, dated May 10, stated in part, “After quizzing my staff, I am concerned about why DA investigators want to arm themselves with automatic or semiautomatic assault rifles. I hear that (DA’s Office Chief Investigator) Mike Hislop said that they are interested in being part of the security plan and covering the second floor (of the Courthouse, where courtrooms are located). I have also heard that there is an interest in backing up (the Eureka Police Department) and even providing perimeter security.”
Nickolaus continued, “While having backup is usually a good thing, I think this may be outside their course and scope of work, as DA investigators. Plus, doesn’t it create a conflict if the DA investigators are at the scene of a standoff, hostage situation or whatever? How can you investigate something you were a part of?”
Purchase requisitions for the eight-person investigations unit included one 42-gun safe with an electronic lock and dehumidifier at $3,619.31, eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles at $1,920 each, 10 boxes of .223-caliber hollow-point bullets at $198.50 a box, eight sets of body armor at $550 each, eight tactical vests at $100 each, 16 pairs of tan double-front Carhartt pants at $45 each, eight black parkas at $188 each, 16 “DA Investigator” patches for the parkas at $8 each, a sewing and tailoring charge for the parkas of $27.50, eight short-sleeved polo shirts at $34 each, eight long-sleeved polo shirts at $26 each and an embroidery and lettering charge for the shirts of $520.
But DA investigators may be all dressed up with nowhere to go.
The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office’s Strategic Enforcement Team, a 14-member special weapons and tactics team equivalent, currently operates out of the first floor of the Humboldt County Courthouse, with the DA’s Office and its investigators located on the fourth floor of the same building.
Seven blocks away is the headquarters for the EPD’s 13-member SWAT Team, a unit supported by an additional 13 patrol rifle officers who are trained in and armed with augmented weaponry, according to EPD Public Information Officer Suzie Owsley.
EPD Chief Garr Nielsen said Tuesday his department had not entered into any agreement with the DA’s Office for SWAT support to the EPD.
“I had a discussion with Hislop, during which he informed me that he was in the process of equipping his investigators with tactical equipment and that they would be available to assist EPD if needed,” Nielsen stated via e-mail.
“(Hislop) specifically mentioned being able to help us out with some of our drug sweeps. We did not discuss nor agree upon them assuming a supporting role to EPD in SWAT situations. We currently have an agreement with the Sheriff’s Office to back each other up for SWAT. SWAT support entails training together regularly in addition to formal agreements and established protocols, none of which have we discussed with the District Attorney’s Office.”
Numerous law enforcement agencies within California were contacted and asked if their DA investigators were armed with tactical weaponry. Even in much larger jurisdictions, the answer was almost always no.
In Santa Clara County, for example, which boasts a population more than 10 times that of Humboldt County, Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Sgt. Ed Wise said he could not recall a single instance when a DA investigator participated in a tactical situation.
But Gallegos said DA investigators frequently have tactical weapons, and Tim Kiely, chief investigator for the Mendocino County DA’s Office, concurred.
Kiely said his office currently has two semiautomatic weapons, although they are in the process of selling them at the request of the DA. In an informal survey he conducted of approximately 25 counties, he said more than half the DA Offices that responded had semi- or fully automatic weapons.
Gallegos said he didn’t know who had heavy weapons and who didn’t, “but I know I have guys who are going out there, and I want to make sure they are adequately protected.”
Supervisor Jill Geist brought the motion in March to adopt the supplemental budget and reiterated Tuesday that all law enforcement personnel should be protected.
“That investigators have firearms is very common,” Geist said. “That they have adequate body protection is also very common and very appropriate. I think it’s the scale of it that we’re talking about here, the level of armament involved.
“The list of items caught us a little flat-footed, to say the least,” she said. “While (Gallegos) may assert this is very common, this is not something I’m familiar with.”
According to Kim Kerr, Humboldt County risk manager and deputy CAO, the paperwork has been processed for all of the items except the assault rifles and the safe. Some of the purchases may already have been received.
Kerr stated Tuesday, “As of now, the rifles and gun safe request is on hold until the District Attorney’s Office responds to (Nickolaus’) e-mail request for information. Depending upon the response, then there will be a determination to purchase the rifles and safe or not.”
Gallegos said he had not yet seen the May 10 e-mail from Nickolaus, but would look at it to see what concerns she may have.
In it, Nickolaus asked Gallegos, “Does the DA’s office have a use-of-force policy, and/or training programs or policies for any of this stuff? Would they be working out of class? There are many questions, and I need answers before I can approve these purchases.”
In his initial request, Gallegos said the expenses represented permissible uses of asset forfeiture trust funds, and if the request was not approved, his staff would “continue to face compromising health and safety risks when responding to criminal matters due to lack of proper equipment and communication mediums.”
5/16/2007
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
Related:
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007
Consent Calendar Item c-5
District Attorney
5. Supplemental Budget in District Attorney's Budget Unit 1100-205, in the amount of $58,462.00 and Establish Fixed Assets Accounts (Fund 3921 - Asset Forfeiture)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the supplemental budget for the purchase of safety equipment, firearms, radios, cellular phones , evidence tracking system and supplies to be used in support of law enforcement purposes that may result in further seizures and forfeitures for our District Attorney Investigative and Prosecutor Staff.
6. Advance Step Appointment for Wayne Cox, Investigator (District Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and Advance Step appointment for Wayne Cox, Investigator for the District Attorney's Office to Step E, Effective February 13, 2007
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
Update:
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)