Audit of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (November 23, 2023)

This is a state performance audit of certain activities at the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office for July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021.

“In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of certain activities of the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office (PCDA) for the period July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2021.”

The audit checked whether the office handled drug-case forfeiture money properly and whether employees completed cybersecurity awareness training.

“The purpose of our audit was to determine the following:”

This matters because forfeited money is supposed to be shared correctly with police departments, and employees need cybersecurity training to reduce the risk of attacks and losses.

“Without educating its employees on their responsibility to protect the security of information assets, PCDA exposes itself to a higher risk of cybersecurity attacks and financial and/or reputational losses.”

For residents, the practical issue is whether public money tied to law enforcement is distributed correctly and whether the DA’s office is protecting government information systems.

“If police departments do not receive all of the forfeited assets to which they are entitled, they cannot use the associated revenue for law enforcement needs such as training and equipment.”

The office’s forfeiture spending tested by auditors was allowed, but auditors found one distribution error and one cybersecurity training gap.

“Did PCDA make forfeiture trust fund expenditures in accordance with Section 47(d) of Chapter 94C of the General Laws?”

The auditor recommended that the office distribute forfeited assets accurately and require cybersecurity training for employees after hiring and every year.

“PCDA should develop and implement policies and procedures that require employees to complete cybersecurity awareness training within 30 days of their orientation and annually thereafter.”

The most concrete dollar finding was that Brockton Police should have received $6,638 more than it did from 18 forfeiture cases.

“We identified 18 total cases, totaling $22,126, which should have been split equally between PCDA and the Brockton Police Department ($11,063 each).”

“Asset forfeiture” means law enforcement can seize money or property connected to illegal drug activity, and if a court orders it forfeited, the money is split between the DA’s office and the police department involved.

“To prevent individuals from profiting from illegal drug activity, Section 47 of Chapter 94C of the General Laws authorizes law enforcement to seize assets, such as any profits of drug distribution or any property that is used, or was intended to be used, for illegal drug activity.”