Executive summary
In response to the August 26, 2026 CPRA request, County Counsel delivered a ten-part response dated October 26 and two PDF attachments: a 295-page Amador County Probation Department manual (footer dated October 22, 2026) and a five-page blank Order of Probation form (Rev. 3/23). These records describe written standards; they do not establish how consistently any particular standard was implemented in an individual case or in earlier years.
Key findings from the manual
1. Required supervision level · Policy 402.4.2, page 122
The manual directs that adults currently supervised for a sex offense, and people under felony supervision required to register under Penal Code § 290, be assigned the highest supervision level. This distinguishes the required classification from discretionary low/moderate-risk monitoring provisions. Source: page 122.
2. High-risk adult contact frequency · Policy 403.3, page 126
The high-risk adult standard requires a monthly probation-office check-in and two additional in-person contacts per month; the officer should make every effort for one of those additional contacts to take place at the residence. Contacts must be logged in the case-management system. The manual includes special provisions for people in residential treatment. This is a written standard, not an audit of completed visits. Source: page 126.
3. Sex-offender electronic monitoring · Policy 403.3.1, page 127
For adults assessed as high risk under the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders (SARATSO), the monitoring plan is to include continued electronic monitoring and intensive specialized supervision unless an applicable judicial or release order specifically removes that monitoring requirement. This provision should not be characterized as GPS monitoring for every registrant. Source: page 127.
4. Registration and violations · Policies 402.8.1 and 404, pages 123, 131–132
Policy 402.8.1 instructs officers to notify supervised registrants of the requirement to produce proof of registration in the specified period. Policy 404 directs officers to investigate suspected violations, document whether cases were referred to court or prosecutors, and report violations of court-imposed conditions to the court. Source: page 123 · pages 131–132.
5. Tools and monitoring oversight · Policy 403, pages 125–130
The manual describes field visits, home contacts, telephone contacts, location monitoring and social-media review as possible techniques within authorized monitoring plans. It calls for supervisor oversight, documentation, and limitations on certain social-media account access. These descriptions do not establish that every tool was used in practice. Source: pages 125–130.
What County Counsel said was not produced
Item 7: The department reported no responsive written interagency agreements or coordination protocols specifically requested for sex-offender compliance. Item 8: It withheld investigative case-file records and reported no compiled summary records identifying coordinated compliance operations or sweeps from 2023 onward. Item 9: It withheld requested case-file information and reported no compiled summary records of supervised registrants, residence checks, violation counts or referrals. This does not prove those activities did not occur; it describes the limits of records identified and released.
Item 10: Counsel identified potentially responsive records but asserted exemptions as to case files and sentencing reports. No separately identified policy study, proposal, or non-case memo responsive to that item accompanied the two PDFs. This remains an appropriate follow-up question. Source: October 26 response, items 7–10.
The blank Order of Probation form
The supplied form includes unselected potential conditions covering child contact, proximity to schools and playgrounds, treatment, internet activity, polygraphs and electronic monitoring. County Counsel expressly says conditions are determined by the court case by case. Do not interpret this blank form as an order entered against any identified person, or as a universal ban applicable to all registrants. Source: blank order, pages 1–3.
Questions remaining
- Are required in-person contacts and residence visits consistently recorded and completed, and can the department report aggregate compliance without identifying probationers?
- Which agency verifies registration addresses outside the probation caseload, and is coordination documented elsewhere despite the absence of responsive written agreements at Probation?
- Are there completed after-action reports or existing administrative summaries held by other county agencies?
- Did any responsive, non-case-file policy analyses under item 10 exist and, if so, why were they not separately released?
- What versions of these policies governed supervision before the October 22, 2026 manual date?
Primary sources
October 26 County Counsel response (TXT) · Probation Manual (295-page original PDF) · Blank Order of Probation (five-page original PDF) · Request and response timeline.
Methodology: This is analysis of the supplied agency email and PDF attachments, not an independent investigation into individual probationer records. No compliance failure is inferred from the absence of aggregate reports. PDF page citations refer to pages displayed in the released PDF.