October 24, 2014
Final Reports
San Mateo Courts - Civil Grand Jury

2000-2001 Final Report:


SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES
TO 1998 GRAND JURY REPORT
Law Enforcement

Courthouse
Security
1999 Recommendation
Response by Agency
2000-2001 Activity
43. High priority should be given to court security. County manager's response: Disagree. Responsibility for the security of court facilities rests with the courts. As long as state funding is available, the county, through the Sheriff's Office, will continue to support the cooperation of the security checkpoint at the Hall of Justice. As of August 31, 2000, the county has purchased and installed three portable magnetometers: one is in the North County Courthouse in Courtroom O; one is in the Central County Courthouse; one is being used as a rover.
44. Similar systems should be installed in all county courthouses and as part of the remodeling of the Juvenile Facility at Hillcrest. County manager's response: Disagree. See response #43. Will support provided the state funds the one-time installation and ongoing operation costs of the perimeter systems.Sheriff response's: Agree provided state funds are received. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury agrees with the county manager's response.
45. Changes proposed by the Building Security Committee for the Northern Court Branch should be implemented. County manager's response: Disagree. Perimeter security is defined as a court cost. County will support implementation of the program provided the state funds the one-time installation and ongoing operation costs of the security systems.Sheriff's response: Disagree. Current staffing levels sufficient. An additional deputy has been hired who is currently working in the Northern Court. The grand jury finds that necessary steps have been taken to install magnetometers.
46. Wiring of security checkpoints should be planned in all future construction projects. County manager's response: Disagree. The county has moved forward with plans to replace manual keys with electronic card keys at most county-owned facilities. However, the county has no plans to implement security screening measures at non-court facilities. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury agrees with the county manager's response. There are no additional funds coming from the state to ensure that all measures for additional security will be installed. As the county finds the money, it will provide additional card keys and staff.
47. An additional deputy should be assigned to the Hall of Justice public entrance. County manager's response: Disagree. Responsibility for the security of court facilities rests with the courts. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury agrees with the county manager's response.
48. The grand jury should monitor in 2000.   The grand jury submits this review of 2000-2001 activity as its report.
Pacifica Police
Department
1999 Recommendation
Response by Agency
2000-2001 Activity
49. Pacifica City Council should secure funding for a new Pacifica police facility. Concur. Ground breaking for the new building to house the city's emergency services and police administrative offices occurred May 19, 2001. The grand jury commends the Pacifica City Council, other officials, and the Citizens Organized for a Police Station for securing pledges of approximately $6.3 million from state and local sources.
50. Grand jury should monitor in 2000.   The grand jury submits this review of 2000-2001 activity as its report.

 

© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County