Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he has rescinded the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ police powers granted under his authority, but county staff said the move doesn’t stick.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.”
As he told hundreds of angry residents at the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said he’s been concerned for a long time about the arrangement he inherited when elected and has been in discussions for months with the County Counsel’s Office to find a solution.
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.
While he listened to residents’ complaints during the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said his reversal has nothing to do with the officers.
“I am not saying they have done anything wrong,” Gallegos said.
Code Enforcement Unit activity is under a limited 45-day moratorium and its officers cannot engage in actions where search warrants are needed.
The Board of Supervisors ordered the moratorium and directed a Code Enforcement Unit Task Force to be formed to investigate the unit’s use-of-force policies and procedures following a meeting April 8 where hundreds of residents turned out to repeat the concerns raised during the Garberville meeting the previous week.
Reached Wednesday in Redding, Board of Supervisors Chairperson Jill Geist said she was learning about the DA’s decision from media.
“To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal request from the District Attorney’s Office to the board or the CAO’s Office regarding the code enforcement officers,” Geist said.
Geist said these were the issues she hoped would be the topics discussed by the task force, of which she and Supervisor Roger Rodoni are both members.
During their meeting Tuesday, the supervisors picked three at-large members to complete the nine-member task force, although no meetings have yet been held.
The code enforcement officers are moving forward with the more routine nuisance and cleanup abatement cases, which county officials say represent the majority of the code enforcement workload and don’t require armed officers.
All the county officials reached for this article agree the Code Enforcement Unit’s current cross-deputization structure between the DA and the County Counsel’s Office needs to be examined, which is expected to be done both internally and in the parallel process under the task force.
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.
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM
Showing posts with label Gallegos/Assault Weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gallegos/Assault Weapons. Show all posts
3.08.2008
TS - Feds eye firearms in Gundersen case
TS Feds eye firearms in Gundersen casee (w/ video)
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is involved in an investigation into Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen and the stash of high-powered submachine guns found at the department during a February search.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos said the agency has been informed and has a hand in the investigation.
”Whenever you have firearms involved in a case, there is going to be some ATF involvement,” Gallegos said.
The ATF will be considering whether there are federal firearms violations regarding the possession, sale or transport of the three types of submachine guns allegedly found in Blue Lake, or the submachine gun, the pistol fixed with a silencer or other weapons reportedly found in Gundersen's home.
Both state and federal law are fairly clear about possessing a submachine gun or a pistol with a silencer: It's illegal in California, and illegal in the United States without a special permit from the ATF. Under California law, the penalty for possession of a machine gun is an unspecified prison term, up to a $10,000 fine, or both. For possession of a silencer it's the same.
But state law allows a law enforcement agency to buy machine guns, and for officers to have them and silencers -- as long as they use them in an official capacity and within the scope of their duties. In fact, there is no limit on the number of submachine guns an agency can have, said California Department of Justice spokesman Abraham Arredondo.
The Use of Firearms section of the Blue Lake Police Department Manual does not make any reference to submachine guns or silencers.
Any machine gun may be imported by a licensed importer -- H&K is a German manufacturer -- for sale to a law enforcement agency, wrote ATF Senior Special Agent Nina Delgadillo in an e-mail. There is no federal limit on the number or type of machine guns a police agency can possess, Delgadillo also wrote.
No records of 10 H&K UMP 9mm submachine guns found in the search of the Blue Lake department were filed with the state, while other guns there were state-registered, according to the District Attorney's Office. Whether a police department is strictly required to register a submachine gun when it comes into the department's possession is unclear.
Melva Paris, records supervisor for the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, said when the sheriff's department purchases firearms, they are immediately registered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS.
”We purchase them, and then when we get them they have to go into the CLETS system as an 'institutional weapon,'” Paris said. “(The Department of Justice) has to know who those weapons belong to.”
That's all done with good reason, according to James Broder, a former FBI agent and U.S. State Department employee who now works as an expert witness.
”Obviously, it's done so they can identify them and trace them if they are involved in a crime in the future,” Broder said, adding that agencies want to be able to track officers' lost or stolen weapons, or prevent their use by rogue officers. “The whole key is identification, that's why we do this stuff -- so you can identify the firearm in the event it is used for an illegal purpose.”
So far, Gallegos has charged Gundersen with two gun crimes. They are related to the H&K MP5 submachine gun reportedly found in a safe in his garage and the pistol with a silencer. Gallegos alleges Gundersen was in unlawful possession of both under violations of penal codes related to individuals.
Gundersen has also been charged with 12 counts of spousal rape, one count of kidnapping with the use of a firearm with the intent to rape -- in connection to another alleged victim -- threatening a witness and other crimes.
He has pleaded not guilty to all 19 counts and is currently being held in the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on $1.25 million bail.
John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com and Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is involved in an investigation into Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen and the stash of high-powered submachine guns found at the department during a February search.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos said the agency has been informed and has a hand in the investigation.
”Whenever you have firearms involved in a case, there is going to be some ATF involvement,” Gallegos said.
The ATF will be considering whether there are federal firearms violations regarding the possession, sale or transport of the three types of submachine guns allegedly found in Blue Lake, or the submachine gun, the pistol fixed with a silencer or other weapons reportedly found in Gundersen's home.
Both state and federal law are fairly clear about possessing a submachine gun or a pistol with a silencer: It's illegal in California, and illegal in the United States without a special permit from the ATF. Under California law, the penalty for possession of a machine gun is an unspecified prison term, up to a $10,000 fine, or both. For possession of a silencer it's the same.
But state law allows a law enforcement agency to buy machine guns, and for officers to have them and silencers -- as long as they use them in an official capacity and within the scope of their duties. In fact, there is no limit on the number of submachine guns an agency can have, said California Department of Justice spokesman Abraham Arredondo.
The Use of Firearms section of the Blue Lake Police Department Manual does not make any reference to submachine guns or silencers.
Any machine gun may be imported by a licensed importer -- H&K is a German manufacturer -- for sale to a law enforcement agency, wrote ATF Senior Special Agent Nina Delgadillo in an e-mail. There is no federal limit on the number or type of machine guns a police agency can possess, Delgadillo also wrote.
No records of 10 H&K UMP 9mm submachine guns found in the search of the Blue Lake department were filed with the state, while other guns there were state-registered, according to the District Attorney's Office. Whether a police department is strictly required to register a submachine gun when it comes into the department's possession is unclear.
Melva Paris, records supervisor for the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office, said when the sheriff's department purchases firearms, they are immediately registered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS.
”We purchase them, and then when we get them they have to go into the CLETS system as an 'institutional weapon,'” Paris said. “(The Department of Justice) has to know who those weapons belong to.”
That's all done with good reason, according to James Broder, a former FBI agent and U.S. State Department employee who now works as an expert witness.
”Obviously, it's done so they can identify them and trace them if they are involved in a crime in the future,” Broder said, adding that agencies want to be able to track officers' lost or stolen weapons, or prevent their use by rogue officers. “The whole key is identification, that's why we do this stuff -- so you can identify the firearm in the event it is used for an illegal purpose.”
So far, Gallegos has charged Gundersen with two gun crimes. They are related to the H&K MP5 submachine gun reportedly found in a safe in his garage and the pistol with a silencer. Gallegos alleges Gundersen was in unlawful possession of both under violations of penal codes related to individuals.
Gundersen has also been charged with 12 counts of spousal rape, one count of kidnapping with the use of a firearm with the intent to rape -- in connection to another alleged victim -- threatening a witness and other crimes.
He has pleaded not guilty to all 19 counts and is currently being held in the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on $1.25 million bail.
John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com and Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com
1.12.2008
story behind the story -
Reports of a multi-agency bust of some car burglars somehow do not include that the DA himself was playing cop, all dressed up in his POLICE SWAT gear. Not the DA investigators, which would be appropriate, but the DA, Paul Gallegos himself.
Five agencies join for car burglary arrests
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 01/12/2008 01:16:39 AM PST
Two people were arrested Thursday after officers, investigators, deputies and agents from five law enforcement agencies linked them to seven car burglaries.
The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office said Nathan William Bartlett, 33, and Rebecca Louise Hamline, 27, both of Eureka, were arrested after three search warrants were served at various locations around Eureka.
The DA's Office said the two were arrested in connection with the seven car burglaries, two car thefts, a count of robbery and a count of vehicle vandalism.
”The investigation has so far determined that Hamline and Bartlett targeted areas where vehicles were parked and remained for a significant period of time, such as parking lots, beaches, churches, Park and Ride facilities and state parks,” said a DA's Office press release.
People who have been victims of thefts are asked to make a detailed lists of what was taken and then call DA Investigator Wayne Cox at 268-2591, or e-mail him at wcox@co.humboldt.ca.us .
Two others were arrested in the course of the investigation. Dennis Keith Cox, 29, and Desiree Dawn Visser, 30, both of Eureka, were arrested on drug charges and booked into the Humboldt County Jail.
The agencies involved in the investigation were the DA's Office, the Eureka Police Department, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, the Bureau of Land Management and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.
Five agencies join for car burglary arrests
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 01/12/2008 01:16:39 AM PST
Two people were arrested Thursday after officers, investigators, deputies and agents from five law enforcement agencies linked them to seven car burglaries.
The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office said Nathan William Bartlett, 33, and Rebecca Louise Hamline, 27, both of Eureka, were arrested after three search warrants were served at various locations around Eureka.
The DA's Office said the two were arrested in connection with the seven car burglaries, two car thefts, a count of robbery and a count of vehicle vandalism.
”The investigation has so far determined that Hamline and Bartlett targeted areas where vehicles were parked and remained for a significant period of time, such as parking lots, beaches, churches, Park and Ride facilities and state parks,” said a DA's Office press release.
People who have been victims of thefts are asked to make a detailed lists of what was taken and then call DA Investigator Wayne Cox at 268-2591, or e-mail him at wcox@co.humboldt.ca.us .
Two others were arrested in the course of the investigation. Dennis Keith Cox, 29, and Desiree Dawn Visser, 30, both of Eureka, were arrested on drug charges and booked into the Humboldt County Jail.
The agencies involved in the investigation were the DA's Office, the Eureka Police Department, the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, the Bureau of Land Management and the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.
9.24.2007
Paul Gallegos' Use of Force Policy
Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office Use of Force
1. The District Attorney’s office policy on the use of firearms and deadly force is:
A. Discharging a firearm at another human being is an application of deadly force and must,
therefore, be objectively reasonable. Each investigator discharging a firearm must establish
independent reasoning for using deadly force.
B. Investigators may use deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of others, only when they
reasonably believe that death or serious physical injury is about to be inflicted upon
themselves or others.
C. Investigators may use deadly force to affect the arrest or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon
only when they have probable cause to believe that the suspect represents a significant threat
of death or serious physical injury to the member or other person(s). If feasible, investigators
should identify themselves and state their intention to shoot before firing at a fleeing felon.
D. The use of firearms against fleeing or approaching vehicles has proven to be generally
ineffective and inherently dangerous. Investiagtors should not fire at a moving vehicle,
whether to disable the vehicle or stop the suspect, unless they have probable cause to believe
the suspect represents an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers
or other person(s). Members shall take into account the location, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic and any hazard to innocent persons before firing at a moving vehicle. Investigators
shall not place themselves or remain in the path of a moving vehicle.
E. The firing of a warning shot is inherently dangerous. They should not be fired except under
the most compelling circumstances. Warning shots may be fired in an effort to stop a person
only when the investigator is authorized to use deadly force, and if the investigator reasonable
believes a warning shot can be fired safely in light of all the circumstances of the encounter.
F. Investigators may discharge their firearms on an approved firearms range, and;
G. To kill a dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its removal
from further suffering and other disposition is found impractical.
H. To give an alarm or to call assistance for an important purpose when no other means can be
used, such as in a search and rescue operation.
2. Investigators will draw and exhibit firearms only:
1. At the firing range.
2. During inspections.
3. When using the firearm in accordance with this Order.
4. When ordered to do so by a superior.
5. When circumstances dictate that precaution should be taken to anticipate authorized use in
accordance to Policy.
3. Procedure
In order to insure that the spirit of the above-stated policy is carried out and that incidents
involving the misuse of firearms, deliberate or accidental, by investigators are minimized, the
following practices and procedures will be adhered to by this office.
A. Qualifications for Use of Firearms by Investigators
Only those investigators who meet the office’s requirements for demonstrated proficiency in
the use of firearms shall be allowed to carry firearms in the course of their employment.
1. Demonstrated proficiency shall mean achieving a qualifying score at a firearms range
designated by the Chief Investigator or Rangemaster, and satisfactory performance at any
special firearms training program.
2. Qualifying scores must be fired with the weapon to be used by the investigator. A record
will be kept of weapons used by investigators in qualifying (on and off duty).
B. Weapons and Ammunition
The only weapons and ammunition to be carried are those meeting authorized specifications
of this office. Weapons must be safety checked and approved by the Chief Investigator or
Rangemaster; all factory-installed safety devices must be intact and operational. Any
unauthorized modifications to weapons is strictly prohibited.
C. Duty handguns
1. Duty Handgun: The duty issue handgun will be the Glock 19 (9mm) or the Glock 23 (40
S&W).
2. Optional Duty Handgun: Individual optional weapons may be carried by investigators.
Expenses incurred for the purchase of the weapon and its accessories will be paid for by
the investigator. The following weapons will be considered for approval:
a. Semi-automatic pistols: Of approved manufacture chambered for 9 mm, 40
S&W, or 45 A.C.P.
b. Revolvers of approved manufacture chambered for caliber 38 or larger with
approval from the Chief Investigator.
3. The individual must qualify with the duty handgun on an approved department course
before carrying the weapon on duty, and thereafter, at least, quarterly.
D. Off-Duty Handguns
1. Off-duty investigators may carry firearms as either expressed or implied by existing law
within the State of California or other jurisdiction.
2. Weapons carried off-duty must adhere to the above standards as to type, and must be
approved by the Chief Investigator as to other caliber.
3. Investigators must identify the weapon of their choice which will be carried off-duty and,
if other than their duty handgun, must demonstrate their proficiency with such weapons,
at least, quarterly.
E. Optional Firearms
All other firearms utilized for duty by investigators, including shotguns, rifles, carbines, and
any other specialized weapons shall be approved by the Chief Investigator based on their
intended use. The use of these weapons is subject to the same considerations as discussed
above, however, the District Attorney’s office recognizes the specialized nature of these
weapons precludes any broad generalizations regarding their use of specifications. Quarterly
qualification is required.
F. Ammunition
All ammunition must be manufactured commercially in the United States and designed for
law enforcement or commercial use. Ammunition must be approved by the Chief
Investigator and Rangemaster. No handloads are allowed.
G. Holsters
Due to the nature of assignment and apparel, holsters are required. Holsters must be designed
to hold the weapon securely.
4. Discharge of a Weapon
Whenever any investigator accidentally or intentionally discharges his/her firearm while
performing a peace officer duty, the investigator shall, as soon as practical, notify the Chief
Investigator of the discharge and attending circumstances. If the Chief Investigator is
unavailable, the investigator shall notify the Senior Investigator or on-call Deputy District
Attorney.
A written report shall be prepared and forwarded to the Chief Investigator within 24 hours of the
incident. If the investigator who discharge his/her weapon is hospitalized, fatally injured, or
otherwise incapable of preparing a report, the Senior Investigator is responsible for filing as
complete a report as possible pending further investigation by this office.
This requirement does not apply to weapons discharged during the course of training or while not
performing a law enforcement function.
A. If death or injury results from such a discharge of firearms or any use of lethal force,
the following procedure shall be followed:
1. The Investigator involved shall immediately notify the Chief Investigator or, if
the Chief Investigator is not available, the Senior Investigator.
2. The Chief Investigator or Senior Investigator shall notify the agency in which
jurisdiction the incident occurred and request such assistance and support as is
necessary.
3. The assigned investigator will assume responsibility of the case and cause
notification of the coroner or other allied agencies as deemed necessary. The
Critical Incident Response Team will be activated and all involved personnel will
assist in the investigation.
4. As soon as circumstances allow, the investigator involved in the incident may be
placed on “Special Leave” status and returned to his duty station, if practical,
remaining available to the investigating personnel. He/she shall continue on
normal salary and report to his/her duty during regular working hours.
1. The District Attorney’s office policy on the use of firearms and deadly force is:
A. Discharging a firearm at another human being is an application of deadly force and must,
therefore, be objectively reasonable. Each investigator discharging a firearm must establish
independent reasoning for using deadly force.
B. Investigators may use deadly force in self-defense or in the defense of others, only when they
reasonably believe that death or serious physical injury is about to be inflicted upon
themselves or others.
C. Investigators may use deadly force to affect the arrest or prevent the escape of a fleeing felon
only when they have probable cause to believe that the suspect represents a significant threat
of death or serious physical injury to the member or other person(s). If feasible, investigators
should identify themselves and state their intention to shoot before firing at a fleeing felon.
D. The use of firearms against fleeing or approaching vehicles has proven to be generally
ineffective and inherently dangerous. Investiagtors should not fire at a moving vehicle,
whether to disable the vehicle or stop the suspect, unless they have probable cause to believe
the suspect represents an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers
or other person(s). Members shall take into account the location, vehicular and pedestrian
traffic and any hazard to innocent persons before firing at a moving vehicle. Investigators
shall not place themselves or remain in the path of a moving vehicle.
E. The firing of a warning shot is inherently dangerous. They should not be fired except under
the most compelling circumstances. Warning shots may be fired in an effort to stop a person
only when the investigator is authorized to use deadly force, and if the investigator reasonable
believes a warning shot can be fired safely in light of all the circumstances of the encounter.
F. Investigators may discharge their firearms on an approved firearms range, and;
G. To kill a dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its removal
from further suffering and other disposition is found impractical.
H. To give an alarm or to call assistance for an important purpose when no other means can be
used, such as in a search and rescue operation.
2. Investigators will draw and exhibit firearms only:
1. At the firing range.
2. During inspections.
3. When using the firearm in accordance with this Order.
4. When ordered to do so by a superior.
5. When circumstances dictate that precaution should be taken to anticipate authorized use in
accordance to Policy.
3. Procedure
In order to insure that the spirit of the above-stated policy is carried out and that incidents
involving the misuse of firearms, deliberate or accidental, by investigators are minimized, the
following practices and procedures will be adhered to by this office.
A. Qualifications for Use of Firearms by Investigators
Only those investigators who meet the office’s requirements for demonstrated proficiency in
the use of firearms shall be allowed to carry firearms in the course of their employment.
1. Demonstrated proficiency shall mean achieving a qualifying score at a firearms range
designated by the Chief Investigator or Rangemaster, and satisfactory performance at any
special firearms training program.
2. Qualifying scores must be fired with the weapon to be used by the investigator. A record
will be kept of weapons used by investigators in qualifying (on and off duty).
B. Weapons and Ammunition
The only weapons and ammunition to be carried are those meeting authorized specifications
of this office. Weapons must be safety checked and approved by the Chief Investigator or
Rangemaster; all factory-installed safety devices must be intact and operational. Any
unauthorized modifications to weapons is strictly prohibited.
C. Duty handguns
1. Duty Handgun: The duty issue handgun will be the Glock 19 (9mm) or the Glock 23 (40
S&W).
2. Optional Duty Handgun: Individual optional weapons may be carried by investigators.
Expenses incurred for the purchase of the weapon and its accessories will be paid for by
the investigator. The following weapons will be considered for approval:
a. Semi-automatic pistols: Of approved manufacture chambered for 9 mm, 40
S&W, or 45 A.C.P.
b. Revolvers of approved manufacture chambered for caliber 38 or larger with
approval from the Chief Investigator.
3. The individual must qualify with the duty handgun on an approved department course
before carrying the weapon on duty, and thereafter, at least, quarterly.
D. Off-Duty Handguns
1. Off-duty investigators may carry firearms as either expressed or implied by existing law
within the State of California or other jurisdiction.
2. Weapons carried off-duty must adhere to the above standards as to type, and must be
approved by the Chief Investigator as to other caliber.
3. Investigators must identify the weapon of their choice which will be carried off-duty and,
if other than their duty handgun, must demonstrate their proficiency with such weapons,
at least, quarterly.
E. Optional Firearms
All other firearms utilized for duty by investigators, including shotguns, rifles, carbines, and
any other specialized weapons shall be approved by the Chief Investigator based on their
intended use. The use of these weapons is subject to the same considerations as discussed
above, however, the District Attorney’s office recognizes the specialized nature of these
weapons precludes any broad generalizations regarding their use of specifications. Quarterly
qualification is required.
F. Ammunition
All ammunition must be manufactured commercially in the United States and designed for
law enforcement or commercial use. Ammunition must be approved by the Chief
Investigator and Rangemaster. No handloads are allowed.
G. Holsters
Due to the nature of assignment and apparel, holsters are required. Holsters must be designed
to hold the weapon securely.
4. Discharge of a Weapon
Whenever any investigator accidentally or intentionally discharges his/her firearm while
performing a peace officer duty, the investigator shall, as soon as practical, notify the Chief
Investigator of the discharge and attending circumstances. If the Chief Investigator is
unavailable, the investigator shall notify the Senior Investigator or on-call Deputy District
Attorney.
A written report shall be prepared and forwarded to the Chief Investigator within 24 hours of the
incident. If the investigator who discharge his/her weapon is hospitalized, fatally injured, or
otherwise incapable of preparing a report, the Senior Investigator is responsible for filing as
complete a report as possible pending further investigation by this office.
This requirement does not apply to weapons discharged during the course of training or while not
performing a law enforcement function.
A. If death or injury results from such a discharge of firearms or any use of lethal force,
the following procedure shall be followed:
1. The Investigator involved shall immediately notify the Chief Investigator or, if
the Chief Investigator is not available, the Senior Investigator.
2. The Chief Investigator or Senior Investigator shall notify the agency in which
jurisdiction the incident occurred and request such assistance and support as is
necessary.
3. The assigned investigator will assume responsibility of the case and cause
notification of the coroner or other allied agencies as deemed necessary. The
Critical Incident Response Team will be activated and all involved personnel will
assist in the investigation.
4. As soon as circumstances allow, the investigator involved in the incident may be
placed on “Special Leave” status and returned to his duty station, if practical,
remaining available to the investigating personnel. He/she shall continue on
normal salary and report to his/her duty during regular working hours.
9.01.2007
TS on Gallegos getting his AR-15s
DA force policy cleared by county administrator
The county administrative office has reviewed and approved an updated use of force policy drawn up by District Attorney Paul Gallegos' office, and will leave a decision to purchase eight assault rifles up to him.
County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus said she returned the policy to the district attorney Friday afternoon. Nickolaus had asked Gallegos in May to provide a revised policy before she approved the purchase of the AR-15 rifles for DA investigators.
She said, however, that she remains concerned that use of the rifles could increase the liability exposure for the county. But the money for the weapons is in the district attorney's budget, Nickolaus said.
”The rest is a judgment call on his part,” Nickolaus said.
Nickolaus had questioned Gallegos' stance that district attorney investigators act like other police officers, and need the weapons for operations in remote areas. Nickolaus said that her opinion is that the district attorney's authority is best applied independent of other law enforcement agencies. A conflict of interest could arise if one of Gallegos' investigators is involved in a shooting incident that the district attorney's office would normally investigate, she said.
Gallegos and chief investigator Mike Hislop were out of town Friday afternoon, according to the office. Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat said he was not intimately involved in the issues, but said in an e-mail that there is a protocol for handling conflict of interest.
”The usual legal remedy when a DA has a conflict is that the matter is handled by the state DOJ-- the Office of the Attorney General,” Keat wrote.
Gallegos is expected in the office Tuesday, Keat wrote.
The DA's office has two similar, older rifles. All told, the eight rifles would cost $12,000, which would come from the District Attorney Asset Forfeiture trust funds.
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/01/2007 04:30:15 AM PDT
The county administrative office has reviewed and approved an updated use of force policy drawn up by District Attorney Paul Gallegos' office, and will leave a decision to purchase eight assault rifles up to him.
County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus said she returned the policy to the district attorney Friday afternoon. Nickolaus had asked Gallegos in May to provide a revised policy before she approved the purchase of the AR-15 rifles for DA investigators.
She said, however, that she remains concerned that use of the rifles could increase the liability exposure for the county. But the money for the weapons is in the district attorney's budget, Nickolaus said.
”The rest is a judgment call on his part,” Nickolaus said.
Nickolaus had questioned Gallegos' stance that district attorney investigators act like other police officers, and need the weapons for operations in remote areas. Nickolaus said that her opinion is that the district attorney's authority is best applied independent of other law enforcement agencies. A conflict of interest could arise if one of Gallegos' investigators is involved in a shooting incident that the district attorney's office would normally investigate, she said.
Gallegos and chief investigator Mike Hislop were out of town Friday afternoon, according to the office. Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat said he was not intimately involved in the issues, but said in an e-mail that there is a protocol for handling conflict of interest.
”The usual legal remedy when a DA has a conflict is that the matter is handled by the state DOJ-- the Office of the Attorney General,” Keat wrote.
Gallegos is expected in the office Tuesday, Keat wrote.
The DA's office has two similar, older rifles. All told, the eight rifles would cost $12,000, which would come from the District Attorney Asset Forfeiture trust funds.
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/01/2007 04:30:15 AM PDT
ER - DA Gallegos can get his guns
DA Gallegos can get his guns
by Heather Muller , 8/31/2007
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.”
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Heather Muller , 8/31/2007
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.”
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
7.01.2007
TS/LE - Fewer weapons, not more
Even his supporters respond to Gallegos' inexplicable decision to acquire assault weapons to use in asset forfeiture raids.
Fewer weapons, not more
Letters to the editor
Article Launched: 06/07/2007 04:14:57 AM PDT
I have been proud to display signs for Paul Gallegos in our front yard each time he has been challenged. Perhaps I will again. At this time, however, I am grateful that he has not yet been permitted to purchase the eight requested assault rifles. Our communities need fewer, not more, implements of mayhem and death. And we need our district attorneys to avoid armed confrontations and focus on investigating, evaluating, and prosecuting.
Chip Sharpe
Bayside
Fewer weapons, not more
Letters to the editor
Article Launched: 06/07/2007 04:14:57 AM PDT
I have been proud to display signs for Paul Gallegos in our front yard each time he has been challenged. Perhaps I will again. At this time, however, I am grateful that he has not yet been permitted to purchase the eight requested assault rifles. Our communities need fewer, not more, implements of mayhem and death. And we need our district attorneys to avoid armed confrontations and focus on investigating, evaluating, and prosecuting.
Chip Sharpe
Bayside
5.31.2007
County keeps safety on DA rifle request
John Driscoll and Chris Durant
05/31/2007 The Times-Standard
Humboldt County's chief administrative officer won't approve the purchase of assault rifles requested by the district attorney's office at least until a dusty use of force policy and training protocols are updated.
Loretta Nickolaus said she was satisfied that those policies are being updated after meeting Wednesday with District Attorney Paul Gallegos, his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Assistant County Counsel Wendy Chaitin and Risk Manager Kim Kerr.
Nickolaus said, for now, she won't allow the district attorney's office to buy the eight AR-15 rifles Gallegos is seeking, citing concerns that the county could be held liable if there was an incident involving the guns before the protocols were modernized.
”It's on hold,” Nickolaus said. “Let's see what they come up with.”
Hislop said the meeting was positive and he provided a training syllabus and a draft of the district attorney's office updated use of force policy.
”I answered all their questions,” Hislop said.
After the meeting Wednesday, Hislop delivered a copy of the district attorney's use of force policy to the Times-Standard. The paper had asked Gallegos for the policy through a California Public Records Act request on May 18, after Gallegos said the document was not public and refused to turn over a copy.
Gallegos said in an e-mail that he forwarded the request to Hislop, who was on vacation last week.
Hislop said he receive the paper's request on his Blackberry on the way back from Baja California. Hislop said he had already finished working on the policy before the Times-Standard requested it, and has since given it to county counsel for analysis.
”This is still under review,” Hislop said.
The policy Hislop provided is more limited in scope than those of the county Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department, which are nearly identical to each other. It appears to be more specifically geared toward using firearms for defensive purposes, and does not address more police-related activities of less-than-deadly force or pain compliance techniques that might be used during arrests.
The district attorney's training protocol previously called for district attorney investigators to qualify with their firearms once a year, Hislop said, while he plans to increase that training to four times per year -- a provision now contained in the use of force policy.
District attorney investigators have not discharged a firearm in the course of duty for at least four years, Nickolaus said, if not longer.
She said she's convinced that the DA investigators -- several of which recently came from police or sheriff's departments -- want the assault rifles for defensive purposes.
”They feel like they're not safe unless they have those rifles,” she said.
But while the policy is being revised, Nickolaus said she wouldn't approve their purchase, and voiced concern that the county, or even her as the purchasing agent, could be held liable if they were approved before the use of force policy was updated.
John Driscoll and Chris Durant
05/31/2007 The Times-Standard
Humboldt County's chief administrative officer won't approve the purchase of assault rifles requested by the district attorney's office at least until a dusty use of force policy and training protocols are updated.
Loretta Nickolaus said she was satisfied that those policies are being updated after meeting Wednesday with District Attorney Paul Gallegos, his Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Assistant County Counsel Wendy Chaitin and Risk Manager Kim Kerr.
Nickolaus said, for now, she won't allow the district attorney's office to buy the eight AR-15 rifles Gallegos is seeking, citing concerns that the county could be held liable if there was an incident involving the guns before the protocols were modernized.
”It's on hold,” Nickolaus said. “Let's see what they come up with.”
Hislop said the meeting was positive and he provided a training syllabus and a draft of the district attorney's office updated use of force policy.
”I answered all their questions,” Hislop said.
After the meeting Wednesday, Hislop delivered a copy of the district attorney's use of force policy to the Times-Standard. The paper had asked Gallegos for the policy through a California Public Records Act request on May 18, after Gallegos said the document was not public and refused to turn over a copy.
Gallegos said in an e-mail that he forwarded the request to Hislop, who was on vacation last week.
Hislop said he receive the paper's request on his Blackberry on the way back from Baja California. Hislop said he had already finished working on the policy before the Times-Standard requested it, and has since given it to county counsel for analysis.
”This is still under review,” Hislop said.
The policy Hislop provided is more limited in scope than those of the county Sheriff's Department and the Eureka Police Department, which are nearly identical to each other. It appears to be more specifically geared toward using firearms for defensive purposes, and does not address more police-related activities of less-than-deadly force or pain compliance techniques that might be used during arrests.
The district attorney's training protocol previously called for district attorney investigators to qualify with their firearms once a year, Hislop said, while he plans to increase that training to four times per year -- a provision now contained in the use of force policy.
District attorney investigators have not discharged a firearm in the course of duty for at least four years, Nickolaus said, if not longer.
She said she's convinced that the DA investigators -- several of which recently came from police or sheriff's departments -- want the assault rifles for defensive purposes.
”They feel like they're not safe unless they have those rifles,” she said.
But while the policy is being revised, Nickolaus said she wouldn't approve their purchase, and voiced concern that the county, or even her as the purchasing agent, could be held liable if they were approved before the use of force policy was updated.
5.27.2007
TS - Enough secrecy in the DA's office
Enough secrecy in the DA's office
The Times-Standard Editorial Article Launched: 05/25/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT
The chief prosecutor of Humboldt County has us scratching our heads with his waffling over making his office's “use of force” policy available to the public.
The issue arose when District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his new investigator, former Eureka police Sgt. Mike Hislop, proposed to beef up their firepower with the purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. This triggered questions from Loretta Nicklaus, Humboldt County's administrative officer, who wondered whether the DA had the need, training and policies in place for such an arsenal -- a use of force policy, in particular.
While working on a story about the new weapons, two Times-Standard reporters sought a copy of the DA's policy. Gallegos initially said he would get them a copy, then changed his mind and wouldn't even let them view the document. The Times-Standard then made a formal request a week ago under the state Public Records Act. Gallegos has 10 days to release the use of force policy, or to explain his legal reasons for withholding it.
Since then, Gallegos has offered these comments about the issue, via e-mail:
* “I never said that the information was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Quite the contrary, I informed you that our use of force policy is not a public record.” To throw around some legal Latin, that's a non sequitur. A FOIA request is the federal equivalent of the California Public Records Act, and is a tool used to pry PUBLIC records out of reluctant PUBLIC officials.
* “I have some reluctance to make use of force policies public information . . . especially when there is no claim that anyone (in the DA's office) has unlawfully used force.”
That has no bearing on whether a policy is public or not. But perhaps Gallegos and his team are being overly sensitive to community polarization about four shooting deaths involving Eureka police officers, going back to Cheri Lyn Moore more than a year ago. DA investigations and findings on three of those deaths are pending, including Moore's.
* “I also informed you that, if you heard from others that (our use of force policy is a public record), to let me know and I would consider others' determinations.”
The Eureka Police Department and the county sheriff's department say their use of force policies are open to the public, as does the DA in San Diego County. So do two open-records experts we checked with -- attorneys who said the law is clear: The public not only has a right to view use of force policies, but to receive copies.
Also, the California Peace Officers' Association says such policies are important in creating public confidence in law enforcement. To do that, of course, the public must know what the policy is.
We have to wonder: Why all this bobbing and weaving, especially by somebody who should know the law? If the DA's office has a use of force policy, let's see it. If it does not, then it should 'fess up and create one (the California Peace Officers' Association has a sample you can adapt). Then put it online, so everyone can see it. That should free up time to produce the long-overdue report on Moore's death.
Related stories:
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007 Consent Calendar Item c-5
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
The Times-Standard Editorial Article Launched: 05/25/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT
The chief prosecutor of Humboldt County has us scratching our heads with his waffling over making his office's “use of force” policy available to the public.
The issue arose when District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his new investigator, former Eureka police Sgt. Mike Hislop, proposed to beef up their firepower with the purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles. This triggered questions from Loretta Nicklaus, Humboldt County's administrative officer, who wondered whether the DA had the need, training and policies in place for such an arsenal -- a use of force policy, in particular.
While working on a story about the new weapons, two Times-Standard reporters sought a copy of the DA's policy. Gallegos initially said he would get them a copy, then changed his mind and wouldn't even let them view the document. The Times-Standard then made a formal request a week ago under the state Public Records Act. Gallegos has 10 days to release the use of force policy, or to explain his legal reasons for withholding it.
Since then, Gallegos has offered these comments about the issue, via e-mail:
* “I never said that the information was not available under the Freedom of Information Act. Quite the contrary, I informed you that our use of force policy is not a public record.” To throw around some legal Latin, that's a non sequitur. A FOIA request is the federal equivalent of the California Public Records Act, and is a tool used to pry PUBLIC records out of reluctant PUBLIC officials.
* “I have some reluctance to make use of force policies public information . . . especially when there is no claim that anyone (in the DA's office) has unlawfully used force.”
That has no bearing on whether a policy is public or not. But perhaps Gallegos and his team are being overly sensitive to community polarization about four shooting deaths involving Eureka police officers, going back to Cheri Lyn Moore more than a year ago. DA investigations and findings on three of those deaths are pending, including Moore's.
* “I also informed you that, if you heard from others that (our use of force policy is a public record), to let me know and I would consider others' determinations.”
The Eureka Police Department and the county sheriff's department say their use of force policies are open to the public, as does the DA in San Diego County. So do two open-records experts we checked with -- attorneys who said the law is clear: The public not only has a right to view use of force policies, but to receive copies.
Also, the California Peace Officers' Association says such policies are important in creating public confidence in law enforcement. To do that, of course, the public must know what the policy is.
We have to wonder: Why all this bobbing and weaving, especially by somebody who should know the law? If the DA's office has a use of force policy, let's see it. If it does not, then it should 'fess up and create one (the California Peace Officers' Association has a sample you can adapt). Then put it online, so everyone can see it. That should free up time to produce the long-overdue report on Moore's death.
Related stories:
DA under fire over assault rifles
Humboldt County Board of Supervisors AGENDA March 6, 2007 Consent Calendar Item c-5
New questions arise after Gallegos' answers about rifles
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Other Blogs discuss:
DA's office requests hand grenades...
Eric - Gallegos wants guns
Fred - DA's Office Follows Vroman's Lead
5.21.2007
Lawyers, Guns and Money
transcript of Thursday night's Humboldt review
Kevin Hoover guest hosting for Hank Sims
KH - On Wednesday, the Eureka Reporter newspaper featured a front page banner headline that read "DA under fire over assault rifles." The story by Heather Muller detailed a budget request by Humboldt County District Attorney office for more than $30,000 for some fairly heavy duty weaponry and related equipment. Included in the arsenal that Paul Gallegos would like to acquire, according to the Eureka reporter, are eight AR-15 assault rifles costing $1,920 each, ten 500 round boxes of .223 caliber hollow point bullets $198.50 per box, eight sets of body armor at $550 each, plus vests, parkas, pants, polo shirts, DA investigator patches and tailoring costs all adding up to $33.060.37.
Well, on the line now we have Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos.
KH - Paul, welcome once again to Humboldt Review.
PG - Hey
KH - Hey Paul
PG - Hey
KH - First I'd like to ask you, was the Eureka Reporter story accurate with regards to the material you'd like to acquire?
PG - Ummm ___________yes?
KH - ok, and this was for, what's the proper term for it - is it the DA investigator unit? What's the term for it?
PG - uh - the, uhh ---unintelligible---
KH - I'm sorry Paul, could you repeat yourself, please?
PG - Yes that is our unit, the DA investigators unit.
KH - What do these folks normally do? I'm not so sure that people know you have in house miniature sort of police force and they are police, with full police powers. I only know this because I know of an Arcata officer who went on to join it and I know one of your folks was at the recent event at D St, Linear Park helping with the enforcement there...
PG - They weren't helping with the enforcement with the Arcata, they were actually independent observers with the Arcata.
KH - But they are police with full police powers? Am I correct, Paul?
PG - Uh, Absolutely - actually they, uh, well, they are law enforcement officers, they have the authority of law enforcement that emanates from MY office. I'm a constitutional officer, umm, so they have more jurisdiction than standard law enforcement officers.
KH - what do they normally do? What's their day to day activities?
PG - Oh - - wide range - - -- they investigate cases, they assist in preparation of cases for trial, uh, they uhhhh ____________ do sweeps, probation sweeps, gang task force sweeps, various meetings, - - broad spectrum.
KH - and then they assist the other local law enforcement agencies in various capacities, too?
PG - Uhh, absolutely.
KH - Ok, and how many folks are in the unit
PG - Uh, eight, right now...
KH - Eight people. Ok and
PG - ...that's what we asked for, eight guns.
KH - and where are they stationed at Paul?
PG - They're stationed at my office.
KH - now why do they need this heavy duty armament and protection?
PG - uh, because they're law enforcement officers and when they're out on the street, they have to be adequately provided for.
KH - well, they wouldn't be wearing this stuff in just everyday...their everyday duties. I mean you didn't go out in the world with assault rifles and dress in the full regalia...
PG - well they would wear it whenever
PG - hey guys -
PG...whenever they, ummm, are out doing things like gang force task sweeps
PG - hey, dude@ -
PG - hold on -
PG - ('m on the phone. I have ummmm - I
PG - ...all those sorts of things that they have to do so absolutely they would...
KH - OK and, are they wearing them on the street
PG - No
KH - Have they uh, had occasions, have there been occasions when this sort of material would have been useful for them to have?
PG - They're law enforcement officers - it's like any officer, it's like.... the answer is "yes." The hope is that it's never used, ummm, but they have to be supplied...
PG - You know what, Kevin? I'll tell you a couple of things that were interesting to me about that story. First of all - uh - the request for money, that came from money that WE received from forfeiture money - - - uh - - Then, the approval of the money was unanimous from the Board of Supervisors... so the Board of Supervisors approved the money - um - these were standard issue - we actually already have automatic rifles - all we're doing is getting new rifles because our existing rifles are old.
KH - What are the existing rifles? What types of rifles are those?
PG - We already have the armament.
KH - How many do you have?
PG - We currently have ONE...we have two semi-automatic rifles, they're semi-automatic rifles.
KH - OK, and you're
PG - That's why we need to have 'em for our people...
KH - Umm, Paul, you said we'd - - - unintelligible - Paul, you said there have been situations where these weapons would have come in handy?
PG - Ummm, I don't think I did say that. I said that our officers have to be adequately armed. The hope is that they would never have to use them but that doesn't mean that you don't - - (arm them) - -
KH - Sure. There's a suggestion in the story that this is a fairly extraordinary level of armament for a DA investigators unit, do you, how, do you have any comment on that?
PG - Umm, yeah, you can suggest anything in a story and it's just not accurate. Umm, many, many DA's offices their investigators units are similarly armed, and you know even San Francisco, those guys have AR-4s which are more modern... and they're fully in the - - unintelligible - -
KH - OK, and your guys, uh, are they all, uh, I'm calling them guys, are they all men?
PG - Right now, yes.
KH - Are they all trained up in use of this sort of weaponry?
PG - Absolutely!
KH - Ok. Now, would they coordinate, for example, with, um, other police units of similar stature that are mentioned in the story - the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit that are similarly armed?
PG - Uh, I'm not sure I understand your question.
KH - Would they work together with them? I know that the two existing units, the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit... they are aware of each other and have mutual aid and protocol agreements...
PG - Of course we have all of those, but we are an independent agency and we don't have to give notification. But - - interrupts - okey doke - anything you need to know? - unintelligible interruption - -
KH - Folks, you need to know that Paul is actually picking up his kids from school or something or some activity, that's why he seems a little distracted. OK, Paul are you back with us?
PG - Yes, yes.
KH - I'm sorry, but the story seems to indicate that those agreements aren't in force at this point. Would that be something that yo're working on? the uh, protocols for cooperation with the Sheriff's and Eureka Police?
PG - Ummm, would that be something that I'm working on? NO. Those are things that are already in existence and they have been in existence. This is not a - chuckles - new thing. We actually have MOUs with law enforcement already...and, ummm, we're always the understood fallback when we're out there, and in any capacity if there's a need for backup, and we're there, our people always have to provide that backup...
KH - OK. Well, that seems to contradict, maybe you can help me resolve this, something in the Eureka Reporter story - They quote EPD Chief Garr Nielsen as saying that, uh, none of these prorocols and agreements have been established or even discussed with the DAs Office. Is that inaccurate?
PG - Uhh, I think... OK. OK. You know, I don't know what the question was to the Chief. As I read that they seemed to be saying we're trying to do SWAT???!?...
KH - Right...
PG - ...with them?
KH - Right.
PG - Which we're not trying to do SWAT with EPD - that's, that's - perverse - ummm so if he was asked if we have this guidelines to do SWAT?? With them, that's absolutely accurate. We are not trying to team up to do SWAT sort of raids or activities with the Eureka Police department.
KH - OK. Would the uh, would your unit when they have this equipment, would they also be called on to do courthouse security? I vaguely remember there's a plan to step up the security around the courthouse...
PG - Ummm, that's the Sheriffs, I read that, too, and that's not our goal. Certainly, if there's a need for backup, um, our people would be there to help, uh, we're always there to help if necessary, but that's the Sheriff's jurisdiction and we're not really too interested in taking on the Sheriff's responsibilities because the Sheriff does a good job doing that himself.
KH - Alright. OK. The County Administrative Officer, Loretta Nickolaus, she, uh, forwarded some questions here in response to your request for funds, a couple of which were. Does the DA's Office have a Use Of Force Policy and or training programs... But do you have a Use Of Force Policy with regard to this level of weaponry?
PG - Yes, and we've had one in place way before I was there, too. All my guys carry weapons...
KH - Right. What are they normally armed with, just handguns I take it?
PG- Umm - ee - it depends on what they're doing, um, certainly standard when they're walking around the office, the courtrooms, they've got their handguns, um, or sidearms, if you want to refer to them that way, um, but they also have, umm, their, just like with these, their, they shoot long guns...
KH - Sure Paul, we need to wrap...
PG - either a shotgun...
KH - Paul, we need...
PG - or semi-automatic rifle...
KH - OK. We need to wrap it up, just wondering where this is at in the process with regards to your...
PG - It's already been authorized?
KH - It's been authorized, are you awaiting...
PG - It was authorized WAY before this happened.
KH - OK. You're awaiting delivery of the rifles at this point?
PG - Say what?
PG - What?
KH - My question is - what do you not have and when are you going to get it?
PG - Umm,. the Board authorized this way before the story came out...
KH - I know. But...
PG - they already authorized the purchase of the rifles...
KH - My question is, what do you actually have, what are you still waiting for an when are you going to get it?
PG - Uh, You know what? - - long pause - -
KH - What?
PG - Frankly, I haven't pulled the purchase orders to see what we've received or not. I might have to talk to my Chief Investigator...
KH - Ok, Paul...
PG - But we;ve received partial, the stuff, but you know it's always basically what happens with any government thing, it goes out to bid, then there's the purchasing process...
KH - Fair enough. DA Paul Gallegos, Thank You very much for making the time to appear on Humboldt Review.
--ok - - unintelligible - -
Kevin Hoover guest hosting for Hank Sims
KH - On Wednesday, the Eureka Reporter newspaper featured a front page banner headline that read "DA under fire over assault rifles." The story by Heather Muller detailed a budget request by Humboldt County District Attorney office for more than $30,000 for some fairly heavy duty weaponry and related equipment. Included in the arsenal that Paul Gallegos would like to acquire, according to the Eureka reporter, are eight AR-15 assault rifles costing $1,920 each, ten 500 round boxes of .223 caliber hollow point bullets $198.50 per box, eight sets of body armor at $550 each, plus vests, parkas, pants, polo shirts, DA investigator patches and tailoring costs all adding up to $33.060.37.
Well, on the line now we have Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos.
KH - Paul, welcome once again to Humboldt Review.
PG - Hey
KH - Hey Paul
PG - Hey
KH - First I'd like to ask you, was the Eureka Reporter story accurate with regards to the material you'd like to acquire?
PG - Ummm ___________yes?
KH - ok, and this was for, what's the proper term for it - is it the DA investigator unit? What's the term for it?
PG - uh - the, uhh ---unintelligible---
KH - I'm sorry Paul, could you repeat yourself, please?
PG - Yes that is our unit, the DA investigators unit.
KH - What do these folks normally do? I'm not so sure that people know you have in house miniature sort of police force and they are police, with full police powers. I only know this because I know of an Arcata officer who went on to join it and I know one of your folks was at the recent event at D St, Linear Park helping with the enforcement there...
PG - They weren't helping with the enforcement with the Arcata, they were actually independent observers with the Arcata.
KH - But they are police with full police powers? Am I correct, Paul?
PG - Uh, Absolutely - actually they, uh, well, they are law enforcement officers, they have the authority of law enforcement that emanates from MY office. I'm a constitutional officer, umm, so they have more jurisdiction than standard law enforcement officers.
KH - what do they normally do? What's their day to day activities?
PG - Oh - - wide range - - -- they investigate cases, they assist in preparation of cases for trial, uh, they uhhhh ____________ do sweeps, probation sweeps, gang task force sweeps, various meetings, - - broad spectrum.
KH - and then they assist the other local law enforcement agencies in various capacities, too?
PG - Uhh, absolutely.
KH - Ok, and how many folks are in the unit
PG - Uh, eight, right now...
KH - Eight people. Ok and
PG - ...that's what we asked for, eight guns.
KH - and where are they stationed at Paul?
PG - They're stationed at my office.
KH - now why do they need this heavy duty armament and protection?
PG - uh, because they're law enforcement officers and when they're out on the street, they have to be adequately provided for.
KH - well, they wouldn't be wearing this stuff in just everyday...their everyday duties. I mean you didn't go out in the world with assault rifles and dress in the full regalia...
PG - well they would wear it whenever
PG - hey guys -
PG...whenever they, ummm, are out doing things like gang force task sweeps
PG - hey, dude@ -
PG - hold on -
PG - ('m on the phone. I have ummmm - I
PG - ...all those sorts of things that they have to do so absolutely they would...
KH - OK and, are they wearing them on the street
PG - No
KH - Have they uh, had occasions, have there been occasions when this sort of material would have been useful for them to have?
PG - They're law enforcement officers - it's like any officer, it's like.... the answer is "yes." The hope is that it's never used, ummm, but they have to be supplied...
PG - You know what, Kevin? I'll tell you a couple of things that were interesting to me about that story. First of all - uh - the request for money, that came from money that WE received from forfeiture money - - - uh - - Then, the approval of the money was unanimous from the Board of Supervisors... so the Board of Supervisors approved the money - um - these were standard issue - we actually already have automatic rifles - all we're doing is getting new rifles because our existing rifles are old.
KH - What are the existing rifles? What types of rifles are those?
PG - We already have the armament.
KH - How many do you have?
PG - We currently have ONE...we have two semi-automatic rifles, they're semi-automatic rifles.
KH - OK, and you're
PG - That's why we need to have 'em for our people...
KH - Umm, Paul, you said we'd - - - unintelligible - Paul, you said there have been situations where these weapons would have come in handy?
PG - Ummm, I don't think I did say that. I said that our officers have to be adequately armed. The hope is that they would never have to use them but that doesn't mean that you don't - - (arm them) - -
KH - Sure. There's a suggestion in the story that this is a fairly extraordinary level of armament for a DA investigators unit, do you, how, do you have any comment on that?
PG - Umm, yeah, you can suggest anything in a story and it's just not accurate. Umm, many, many DA's offices their investigators units are similarly armed, and you know even San Francisco, those guys have AR-4s which are more modern... and they're fully in the - - unintelligible - -
KH - OK, and your guys, uh, are they all, uh, I'm calling them guys, are they all men?
PG - Right now, yes.
KH - Are they all trained up in use of this sort of weaponry?
PG - Absolutely!
KH - Ok. Now, would they coordinate, for example, with, um, other police units of similar stature that are mentioned in the story - the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit that are similarly armed?
PG - Uh, I'm not sure I understand your question.
KH - Would they work together with them? I know that the two existing units, the SWAT Team and Sheriff's Unit... they are aware of each other and have mutual aid and protocol agreements...
PG - Of course we have all of those, but we are an independent agency and we don't have to give notification. But - - interrupts - okey doke - anything you need to know? - unintelligible interruption - -
KH - Folks, you need to know that Paul is actually picking up his kids from school or something or some activity, that's why he seems a little distracted. OK, Paul are you back with us?
PG - Yes, yes.
KH - I'm sorry, but the story seems to indicate that those agreements aren't in force at this point. Would that be something that yo're working on? the uh, protocols for cooperation with the Sheriff's and Eureka Police?
PG - Ummm, would that be something that I'm working on? NO. Those are things that are already in existence and they have been in existence. This is not a - chuckles - new thing. We actually have MOUs with law enforcement already...and, ummm, we're always the understood fallback when we're out there, and in any capacity if there's a need for backup, and we're there, our people always have to provide that backup...
KH - OK. Well, that seems to contradict, maybe you can help me resolve this, something in the Eureka Reporter story - They quote EPD Chief Garr Nielsen as saying that, uh, none of these prorocols and agreements have been established or even discussed with the DAs Office. Is that inaccurate?
PG - Uhh, I think... OK. OK. You know, I don't know what the question was to the Chief. As I read that they seemed to be saying we're trying to do SWAT???!?...
KH - Right...
PG - ...with them?
KH - Right.
PG - Which we're not trying to do SWAT with EPD - that's, that's - perverse - ummm so if he was asked if we have this guidelines to do SWAT?? With them, that's absolutely accurate. We are not trying to team up to do SWAT sort of raids or activities with the Eureka Police department.
KH - OK. Would the uh, would your unit when they have this equipment, would they also be called on to do courthouse security? I vaguely remember there's a plan to step up the security around the courthouse...
PG - Ummm, that's the Sheriffs, I read that, too, and that's not our goal. Certainly, if there's a need for backup, um, our people would be there to help, uh, we're always there to help if necessary, but that's the Sheriff's jurisdiction and we're not really too interested in taking on the Sheriff's responsibilities because the Sheriff does a good job doing that himself.
KH - Alright. OK. The County Administrative Officer, Loretta Nickolaus, she, uh, forwarded some questions here in response to your request for funds, a couple of which were. Does the DA's Office have a Use Of Force Policy and or training programs... But do you have a Use Of Force Policy with regard to this level of weaponry?
PG - Yes, and we've had one in place way before I was there, too. All my guys carry weapons...
KH - Right. What are they normally armed with, just handguns I take it?
PG- Umm - ee - it depends on what they're doing, um, certainly standard when they're walking around the office, the courtrooms, they've got their handguns, um, or sidearms, if you want to refer to them that way, um, but they also have, umm, their, just like with these, their, they shoot long guns...
KH - Sure Paul, we need to wrap...
PG - either a shotgun...
KH - Paul, we need...
PG - or semi-automatic rifle...
KH - OK. We need to wrap it up, just wondering where this is at in the process with regards to your...
PG - It's already been authorized?
KH - It's been authorized, are you awaiting...
PG - It was authorized WAY before this happened.
KH - OK. You're awaiting delivery of the rifles at this point?
PG - Say what?
PG - What?
KH - My question is - what do you not have and when are you going to get it?
PG - Umm,. the Board authorized this way before the story came out...
KH - I know. But...
PG - they already authorized the purchase of the rifles...
KH - My question is, what do you actually have, what are you still waiting for an when are you going to get it?
PG - Uh, You know what? - - long pause - -
KH - What?
PG - Frankly, I haven't pulled the purchase orders to see what we've received or not. I might have to talk to my Chief Investigator...
KH - Ok, Paul...
PG - But we;ve received partial, the stuff, but you know it's always basically what happens with any government thing, it goes out to bid, then there's the purchasing process...
KH - Fair enough. DA Paul Gallegos, Thank You very much for making the time to appear on Humboldt Review.
--ok - - unintelligible - -
5.19.2007
TS - Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Concerns raised over DA investigator weapons
Chris Durant The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 05/19/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT
The proposed arming of district attorney investigators with semiautomatic rifles is raising some questions about whether that unit of the district attorney's office should act as a police force.
Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus asked District Attorney Paul Gallegos earlier this month to explain the proposed purchase of eight AR-15 rifles.
Nickolaus laid out a series of concerns in an e-mail and questioned whether the weapons were “outside their course and scope of work” and whether it would create a conflict if investigators were at the scene of a standoff or hostage situation as backup.
”Does the DA's office have a use of force policy, and or training programs or policies for any of this stuff?” she wrote in an e-mail to Gallegos. “There are many questions, and I need answers before I can approve these purchases.”
A meeting between Nickolaus and the district attorney's office is scheduled for May 29.
In a series of interviews this week, Gallegos said his investigators are like any other police officers and need to be well-equipped because they sometimes act on their own in remote areas without police backup.
He said his office has a use of force policy, but refused to turn over a copy to the Times-Standard, saying it's not public record.
The Eureka Police Department and the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department said their use of force policies are public record. The EPD immediately faxed over a copy.
The San Diego County district attorney's office also said its use of force policy is public record.
The weapons request came soon after chief investigator Mike Hislop moved over to the office from the Eureka Police Department earlier this year.
”I want my guys equipped just as much as the other officers,” Hislop said.
He gave a recent example of investigators accompanying an attorney to check out an old homicide scene in Weitchpec without any other police presence. DA investigator Tom Cooke, who this week assisted other agencies in a large marijuana bust on public lands where an AK-47 was found, said he was the only officer on the scene without a rifle.
Investigator Wayne Cox said he has accompanied witnesses, attorneys and victims to crime scenes in remote areas without other law enforcement.
”And backup is a long way away,” Cox said. “I don't want to get in a gunbattle with a pistol against someone with an AK-47.”
A small survey of other district attorney's offices in rural areas found rifles weren't unique, but other similarly sized offices were not armed to the degree Gallegos is proposing.
Dan Kartchner, chief investigator for the Shasta County district attorney's office, said there are three assault rifles available for his investigators to use on a check-out basis. The rifles have been used in fugitive pursuits and to patrol remote areas during natural disasters such as fires, Kartchner said
Ed Kanutsen, chief investigator with the Napa County district attorney's office, said his office does not have assault rifles but would buy them if he had the resources.
The request has come to the attention of other North Coast law enforcement officials.
”From my perspective, I'm a little puzzled by it,” said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. “But it's up to the district attorney to use his resources as he sees fit.”
Nielsen, who just moved to the area from a Sheriff's Department in Oregon, said when he worked with district attorney investigators in Oregon, they were more in a follow-up investigation role.
Gabe Harp, a senior consultant for Police Officer Standards and Training, said DA investigators do engage in special investigations and he noted there is a lack of backup in remote areas.
”Because of the types of investigations they might get, a little handgun can seem impotent at times,” Harp said.
As for the number of weapons requested, Hislop said each rifle's sights would be adjusted to an individual investigator who would have to qualify with their weapon at a range every three months.
”If they don't qualify, they don't get the rifle,” Hislop said.
Five of the eight investigators were police officers in local departments before coming to the district attorney's office.
Hislop added that if another agency requested assistance from his investigators, and they were able, they would respond and assist.
The $12,000 being used to purchase the weapons comes from the District Attorney Asset Forfeiture trust funds which Hislop said can only be used to purchase equipment.
The DA's office has two similar but older rifles. Investigator Mike Losey has been with the office for 10 years and said there were plenty of times he armed himself with one of the rifles during an investigation.
Hislop said he's scheduled to meet with Nickolaus to talk about the concerns.
”I have an answer to all her questions,” he said.
Staff Writer John Driscoll contributed to this story.
Chris Durant can be reached at 441-0506 or cdurant at times-standard.com.
Comments on TS site:
If they have 2 I don't think they need a further 8. It sounds like they do have use for some rifles, though maybe not AR-15s. Gallegos should stop being a weirdo and hand over their use of force policy.
Max | 05.19.07 - 5:27 am | # |
I am beginning to really dislike the arrogance of Gallegos. What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed. You never know when they will have to clear out a room.
Bill the Chimp | 05.19.07 - 7:36 am | # |
With some in the community questioning the impartially of the D.A's Office investigating major police incidences and calling for the formation of a Citizen's Review Board, the intended acquision of AR-15 rifels by the D.A. Investigator's office under the guise of being ready to assist local agencies in drug raids and swat type situations does nothing to put those questions to rest. The D.A Investigators would do well to remember that they are an investigative unit...not Rambos
John | 05.19.07 - 8:54 am | # |
Is there something mentally wrong with this guy? Bribes, plagiarism, mismanagement, one failed prosecution after another, and now he wants his own assault team. Shouldn't we run the moron out of office BEFORE we pay a small fortune to arm him to the teeth?
anonymous | 05.19.07 - 9:14 am | # |
OH OH!! Don't sound good...........
D Jones | 05.19.07 - 9:30 am | # |
"Rambo"?___The "Terminator"? [What's the diff?]
DtB | 05.19.07 - 9:38 am | # |
Oh my ! Arming law enforcement officers ? The DA investigators are law enforcement officers by the way.
Has the Arcata syndrome infected everybody in Humboldt County ? Maybe we should get rid of all their guns & give them peace symbols instead.
Jim E | 05.19.07 - 9:57 am | # |
Did anyone check out some of the prices?
$1900 per rifle is pretty high for a AR-15, even with a red dot halo site and a couple of extra mags.
And the ammo cost must be a misprint, $198 would buy about 800-1000 rds, not a 20 rd box.
Anon12345 | 05.19.07 - 9:58 am | # |
No one questions whether DA investigators should have guns, Jim. Of course they have them, and this is proper. What they should not have is an in-house assault team commanded by a rogue cop who answers to an incompetent attorney. It's unnecessary, it's unprecedented and it's just plain wrong.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:31 am | # |
Somebody needs to take a close look at the conflict-of-interest issues here. Loretta Nickolaus raised the question, and it needs to be answered. The second the DA's office begins to conduct its own raids and sweeps, it can no longer impartially investigate those incidents. More important, it can no longer operate with legal immunity for these voluntarily assumed duties, which opens the county up to enormous liability. If you think paying off Tammy Falor was expensive, wait until one of the DA's gun nuts shoots someone.
ReedJ | 05.19.07 - 10:38 am | # |
I wonder if anyone has told Paul's traditional SoHum supporters that he wants the weapons and other equipment to augment his asset forfeiture efforts. I would think that might make a few growers rethink their generous cash contributions to his next campaign.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:41 am | # |
Regarding the comment by Bill The Chimp: "What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed."
Have you ever stood in line or had to be at the local social services/welfare office? That is where all our tweakers and crackheads are! (Sorry to the few minority of people that REALLY are there for deserving reasons...). Anyways, I bet you ask a few social workers, they would agree with your meant to be sarcastic comment! That place gets petty freaky!
But back on the subject...Maybe those used-to-be-cops should have stayed cops and should accept their new job for what it is.....I think they should have a few rifles on hand, but stay out of the standoffs, that's what the police officers are for.
- | 05.19.07 - 10:52 am | # |
Seems to me that Hislop came over to the D A' S Office from gestapo minded epd (I hope the new chief and it sounds like he will change epd"s attitude they have towards the public)with no supervisory experience except car crashes.. Now lets see the smoker Gallegos hires him to be the chief investigator, which is supposed to be in charge of all investigations for the district attorney. Seems just like another "smoked uped" decision to hire hislop by Paul. Now hislop wants assault weapons. come on what are you two smokin. they do not need assault guns, After all how many arrest have they made in the past 25 years.
annon | 05.19.07 - 11:17 am | # |
The local media should be ashamed of itself for this tabloid atmosphere in which it shrouds every story. This is a non-story, and he will get his guns. You guys will have your story if they are ever used. Since when have the local papers turned into God, determining which law enforcement officers get to have what equipment?
The local news media is toxic.
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 11:57 am | # |
Yes, while they are sworn officers with a badge and a gun, they have elected to leave the "streets" and step into an investigative unit. Most often crimes are investigated after they have occured. And we have police officers and deputies on the streets and in the courthouse to handle incidences as they arise. I'm assuming that they are qualified to do their job or they would not have been hired... big assumption I know. Therefore, there should be no reason for the DA investigators to "come to the rescue" of other officers who are trained, equipted and competent to do the job they signed up for. Ya know, for as long as I have lived here, EPD has had the reputation of being egotistical big fish in a small pond. Not that I believe all of them are, but in my opinion, these investigators helped EPD get that reputation in the first place and have not yet let go of it... their ego that is.
Tami | 05.19.07 - 12:08 pm | # |
Gotta love it folks! When the "right" crowd whacks out, the "left" crowd becomes suspicious of everything. Hehehe! Sound familiar?
Look at it this way... big guns are big guns. Bad guys have big guns too. So, there needs to be balance.
Arming DDA's with artillery is much less expensive then hiring a new police officer. More money left over for those all important social services that never end.
You all have more to gain by obeying the laws. It ain't a football game, don't ya know?
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:26 pm | # |
Yea, Mike we all know life isn't a football game! However, everyone has a role to play.. ie: Police Officers for the city streets, Sheriff's Deputies for the county areas and the D.A Investigators for INVESTIGATIONS.. get it?
John | 05.19.07 - 12:33 pm | # | Report this comment for offensive material
Hey! I have another idea! Why not sponsor a fund raiser!
Raise money for the purchase of those assault weapons by selling arts and crafts and perhaps some of your dope behind the tent? Raffles are always a winner, too!
Door prizes... get out of jail "free" cards!
That'll work! Community involvement!
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:37 pm | # |
Just a thought. The investigator is investigating a 2 strikes doper for meth production out in the middle of nowhere. Investigator is looking for sites, and runs across the doper. The Investigator has a 9mm pistol, the doper has an ak. The Investigater is now in trouble. Remember there are bad people, many have multiple felonies. With a Carbine the Investigator has a much better chance of survival.
Is it because the rifle in question is an AR 15 that some are upset? As for mutual aid, if a Ferndale cop is in trouble and calls for assistance, the theory seems to be that the DA's investigator can't respond. That's ****.
tj | 05.19.07 - 1:13 pm | # |
If a Ferndale cop needs help, the Sheriff's Office or Fortuna PD would respond.
The Hislop/Gallegos connection is troubling. Hislop replaced Jim Dawson. Dawson is Hislop's father-in-law. How is it that Dawson was allowed to handpick his unqualified son-in-law to replace him? Wasn't there a background investigation into Hislop's cloudy past?
Dig deeper folks. There's a rotten smell coming from the DA's Office and it started when Hislop got hired. Its going to get worse.
Ask questions about the EPD shootings and find out what role Hislop played in them and what role he'll have investigating them. Now there's a conflict, eh?
Annon | 05.19.07 - 1:47 pm | # |
Can either the Times-Standard or Eureka Reporter discuss these issues without such blatant animosity towards the DA? I have a feeling if you guys sniffed some sort of controversy over the DA's office NOT having enough AR-15's for the officers you would run with that story!
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 1:49 pm | # |
Chris Durant The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 05/19/2007 04:29:32 AM PDT
The proposed arming of district attorney investigators with semiautomatic rifles is raising some questions about whether that unit of the district attorney's office should act as a police force.
Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus asked District Attorney Paul Gallegos earlier this month to explain the proposed purchase of eight AR-15 rifles.
Nickolaus laid out a series of concerns in an e-mail and questioned whether the weapons were “outside their course and scope of work” and whether it would create a conflict if investigators were at the scene of a standoff or hostage situation as backup.
”Does the DA's office have a use of force policy, and or training programs or policies for any of this stuff?” she wrote in an e-mail to Gallegos. “There are many questions, and I need answers before I can approve these purchases.”
A meeting between Nickolaus and the district attorney's office is scheduled for May 29.
In a series of interviews this week, Gallegos said his investigators are like any other police officers and need to be well-equipped because they sometimes act on their own in remote areas without police backup.
He said his office has a use of force policy, but refused to turn over a copy to the Times-Standard, saying it's not public record.
The Eureka Police Department and the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department said their use of force policies are public record. The EPD immediately faxed over a copy.
The San Diego County district attorney's office also said its use of force policy is public record.
The weapons request came soon after chief investigator Mike Hislop moved over to the office from the Eureka Police Department earlier this year.
”I want my guys equipped just as much as the other officers,” Hislop said.
He gave a recent example of investigators accompanying an attorney to check out an old homicide scene in Weitchpec without any other police presence. DA investigator Tom Cooke, who this week assisted other agencies in a large marijuana bust on public lands where an AK-47 was found, said he was the only officer on the scene without a rifle.
Investigator Wayne Cox said he has accompanied witnesses, attorneys and victims to crime scenes in remote areas without other law enforcement.
”And backup is a long way away,” Cox said. “I don't want to get in a gunbattle with a pistol against someone with an AK-47.”
A small survey of other district attorney's offices in rural areas found rifles weren't unique, but other similarly sized offices were not armed to the degree Gallegos is proposing.
Dan Kartchner, chief investigator for the Shasta County district attorney's office, said there are three assault rifles available for his investigators to use on a check-out basis. The rifles have been used in fugitive pursuits and to patrol remote areas during natural disasters such as fires, Kartchner said
Ed Kanutsen, chief investigator with the Napa County district attorney's office, said his office does not have assault rifles but would buy them if he had the resources.
The request has come to the attention of other North Coast law enforcement officials.
”From my perspective, I'm a little puzzled by it,” said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. “But it's up to the district attorney to use his resources as he sees fit.”
Nielsen, who just moved to the area from a Sheriff's Department in Oregon, said when he worked with district attorney investigators in Oregon, they were more in a follow-up investigation role.
Gabe Harp, a senior consultant for Police Officer Standards and Training, said DA investigators do engage in special investigations and he noted there is a lack of backup in remote areas.
”Because of the types of investigations they might get, a little handgun can seem impotent at times,” Harp said.
As for the number of weapons requested, Hislop said each rifle's sights would be adjusted to an individual investigator who would have to qualify with their weapon at a range every three months.
”If they don't qualify, they don't get the rifle,” Hislop said.
Five of the eight investigators were police officers in local departments before coming to the district attorney's office.
Hislop added that if another agency requested assistance from his investigators, and they were able, they would respond and assist.
The $12,000 being used to purchase the weapons comes from the District Attorney Asset Forfeiture trust funds which Hislop said can only be used to purchase equipment.
The DA's office has two similar but older rifles. Investigator Mike Losey has been with the office for 10 years and said there were plenty of times he armed himself with one of the rifles during an investigation.
Hislop said he's scheduled to meet with Nickolaus to talk about the concerns.
”I have an answer to all her questions,” he said.
Staff Writer John Driscoll contributed to this story.
Chris Durant can be reached at 441-0506 or cdurant at times-standard.com.
Comments on TS site:
If they have 2 I don't think they need a further 8. It sounds like they do have use for some rifles, though maybe not AR-15s. Gallegos should stop being a weirdo and hand over their use of force policy.
Max | 05.19.07 - 5:27 am | # |
I am beginning to really dislike the arrogance of Gallegos. What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed. You never know when they will have to clear out a room.
Bill the Chimp | 05.19.07 - 7:36 am | # |
With some in the community questioning the impartially of the D.A's Office investigating major police incidences and calling for the formation of a Citizen's Review Board, the intended acquision of AR-15 rifels by the D.A. Investigator's office under the guise of being ready to assist local agencies in drug raids and swat type situations does nothing to put those questions to rest. The D.A Investigators would do well to remember that they are an investigative unit...not Rambos
John | 05.19.07 - 8:54 am | # |
Is there something mentally wrong with this guy? Bribes, plagiarism, mismanagement, one failed prosecution after another, and now he wants his own assault team. Shouldn't we run the moron out of office BEFORE we pay a small fortune to arm him to the teeth?
anonymous | 05.19.07 - 9:14 am | # |
OH OH!! Don't sound good...........
D Jones | 05.19.07 - 9:30 am | # |
"Rambo"?___The "Terminator"? [What's the diff?]
DtB | 05.19.07 - 9:38 am | # |
Oh my ! Arming law enforcement officers ? The DA investigators are law enforcement officers by the way.
Has the Arcata syndrome infected everybody in Humboldt County ? Maybe we should get rid of all their guns & give them peace symbols instead.
Jim E | 05.19.07 - 9:57 am | # |
Did anyone check out some of the prices?
$1900 per rifle is pretty high for a AR-15, even with a red dot halo site and a couple of extra mags.
And the ammo cost must be a misprint, $198 would buy about 800-1000 rds, not a 20 rd box.
Anon12345 | 05.19.07 - 9:58 am | # |
No one questions whether DA investigators should have guns, Jim. Of course they have them, and this is proper. What they should not have is an in-house assault team commanded by a rogue cop who answers to an incompetent attorney. It's unnecessary, it's unprecedented and it's just plain wrong.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:31 am | # |
Somebody needs to take a close look at the conflict-of-interest issues here. Loretta Nickolaus raised the question, and it needs to be answered. The second the DA's office begins to conduct its own raids and sweeps, it can no longer impartially investigate those incidents. More important, it can no longer operate with legal immunity for these voluntarily assumed duties, which opens the county up to enormous liability. If you think paying off Tammy Falor was expensive, wait until one of the DA's gun nuts shoots someone.
ReedJ | 05.19.07 - 10:38 am | # |
I wonder if anyone has told Paul's traditional SoHum supporters that he wants the weapons and other equipment to augment his asset forfeiture efforts. I would think that might make a few growers rethink their generous cash contributions to his next campaign.
Ronald | 05.19.07 - 10:41 am | # |
Regarding the comment by Bill The Chimp: "What next? I think all social workers should be heavily armed."
Have you ever stood in line or had to be at the local social services/welfare office? That is where all our tweakers and crackheads are! (Sorry to the few minority of people that REALLY are there for deserving reasons...). Anyways, I bet you ask a few social workers, they would agree with your meant to be sarcastic comment! That place gets petty freaky!
But back on the subject...Maybe those used-to-be-cops should have stayed cops and should accept their new job for what it is.....I think they should have a few rifles on hand, but stay out of the standoffs, that's what the police officers are for.
- | 05.19.07 - 10:52 am | # |
Seems to me that Hislop came over to the D A' S Office from gestapo minded epd (I hope the new chief and it sounds like he will change epd"s attitude they have towards the public)with no supervisory experience except car crashes.. Now lets see the smoker Gallegos hires him to be the chief investigator, which is supposed to be in charge of all investigations for the district attorney. Seems just like another "smoked uped" decision to hire hislop by Paul. Now hislop wants assault weapons. come on what are you two smokin. they do not need assault guns, After all how many arrest have they made in the past 25 years.
annon | 05.19.07 - 11:17 am | # |
The local media should be ashamed of itself for this tabloid atmosphere in which it shrouds every story. This is a non-story, and he will get his guns. You guys will have your story if they are ever used. Since when have the local papers turned into God, determining which law enforcement officers get to have what equipment?
The local news media is toxic.
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 11:57 am | # |
Yes, while they are sworn officers with a badge and a gun, they have elected to leave the "streets" and step into an investigative unit. Most often crimes are investigated after they have occured. And we have police officers and deputies on the streets and in the courthouse to handle incidences as they arise. I'm assuming that they are qualified to do their job or they would not have been hired... big assumption I know. Therefore, there should be no reason for the DA investigators to "come to the rescue" of other officers who are trained, equipted and competent to do the job they signed up for. Ya know, for as long as I have lived here, EPD has had the reputation of being egotistical big fish in a small pond. Not that I believe all of them are, but in my opinion, these investigators helped EPD get that reputation in the first place and have not yet let go of it... their ego that is.
Tami | 05.19.07 - 12:08 pm | # |
Gotta love it folks! When the "right" crowd whacks out, the "left" crowd becomes suspicious of everything. Hehehe! Sound familiar?
Look at it this way... big guns are big guns. Bad guys have big guns too. So, there needs to be balance.
Arming DDA's with artillery is much less expensive then hiring a new police officer. More money left over for those all important social services that never end.
You all have more to gain by obeying the laws. It ain't a football game, don't ya know?
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:26 pm | # |
Yea, Mike we all know life isn't a football game! However, everyone has a role to play.. ie: Police Officers for the city streets, Sheriff's Deputies for the county areas and the D.A Investigators for INVESTIGATIONS.. get it?
John | 05.19.07 - 12:33 pm | # | Report this comment for offensive material
Hey! I have another idea! Why not sponsor a fund raiser!
Raise money for the purchase of those assault weapons by selling arts and crafts and perhaps some of your dope behind the tent? Raffles are always a winner, too!
Door prizes... get out of jail "free" cards!
That'll work! Community involvement!
Mike | 05.19.07 - 12:37 pm | # |
Just a thought. The investigator is investigating a 2 strikes doper for meth production out in the middle of nowhere. Investigator is looking for sites, and runs across the doper. The Investigator has a 9mm pistol, the doper has an ak. The Investigater is now in trouble. Remember there are bad people, many have multiple felonies. With a Carbine the Investigator has a much better chance of survival.
Is it because the rifle in question is an AR 15 that some are upset? As for mutual aid, if a Ferndale cop is in trouble and calls for assistance, the theory seems to be that the DA's investigator can't respond. That's ****.
tj | 05.19.07 - 1:13 pm | # |
If a Ferndale cop needs help, the Sheriff's Office or Fortuna PD would respond.
The Hislop/Gallegos connection is troubling. Hislop replaced Jim Dawson. Dawson is Hislop's father-in-law. How is it that Dawson was allowed to handpick his unqualified son-in-law to replace him? Wasn't there a background investigation into Hislop's cloudy past?
Dig deeper folks. There's a rotten smell coming from the DA's Office and it started when Hislop got hired. Its going to get worse.
Ask questions about the EPD shootings and find out what role Hislop played in them and what role he'll have investigating them. Now there's a conflict, eh?
Annon | 05.19.07 - 1:47 pm | # |
Can either the Times-Standard or Eureka Reporter discuss these issues without such blatant animosity towards the DA? I have a feeling if you guys sniffed some sort of controversy over the DA's office NOT having enough AR-15's for the officers you would run with that story!
Anonymous | 05.19.07 - 1:49 pm | # |