Court May Free Gates to Free More Inmates : Jails: But sheriff calls ACLU proposal for changes in his early release policy ‘a grave threat to public safety.’

A proposed court order capping inmate populations at every Orange County jail would hand Sheriff Brad Gates new authority to fight overcrowding and shield him from the wrath of judges outraged over his method of freeing prisoners early, legal experts said Friday.

If granted by a federal judge next month, the order being sought by lawyers for county inmates would protect Gates from contempt of court charges arising from his practice of making room for more dangerous prisoners by releasing others accused or convicted of lesser crimes.

Municipal judges have repeatedly threatened Gates with contempt, contending that some of the releases violate state law. But a spokesman for the local judges acknowledged Friday that the proposed order might impede their ability to bring such charges.

“It certainly sounds like that’s what they’re trying to do,” said Municipal Court Presiding Judge Richard W. Stanford. “If it gives him specific direction or discretion to release prisoners, I’m sure he’ll maintain that it provides him a defense against contempt.”

The request from the inmates’ lawyers, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, marks the latest wrinkle in the ever-growing problem of jail overcrowding in the county. Ironically, in a small way, it puts Gates and inmate advocates on the same side of the issue, which has historically seen them vigorously at odds.

“It’s very ironic,” Stanford said. “Maybe the sheriff should really question his position if he finds the ACLU in coincidence with it.”

Gates, however, dismissed any suggestion that he and ACLU lawyers have found a common ground:

“The bottom line that (what) they’re after is release of prisoners, and that’s certainly not what we support,” the sheriff said, adding that the request for a new court order represents “a grave threat to the public safety of the people of this county.”

The ACLU motion, filed Tuesday in federal court in Santa Ana, seeks to amend a 1978 federal judge’s order that capped the inmate population at the Santa Ana Men’s Jail. That order, however, did not apply to the other four jails in the county system, and the new motion would for the first time extend the cap to those facilities as well.

The proposed ceilings could force jail officials to release or find new beds for about 1,200 inmates, Gates predicts. The order would not take effect until the end of next year, by which time the county expects to have added about 400 new beds, and it would let jail officials continue housing some inmates in tents at a branch jail facility. Nevertheless, the sheriff said, the systemwide effects still would be dramatic.

“If the new action by the ACLU were approved by the judge, we’d have to turn about 1,200 people loose,” Gates said. “It absolutely disturbs me. . . . There’s a lack of concern for public safety on the part of the ACLU.”

Richard P. Herman, an ACLU attorney, agreed that the proposed federal order could mark “the end to the challenges (against Gates) from the (municipal) court judges.”

But Herman disputed the sheriff’s estimate of how many prisoners would go free if the order were approved. In addition to the new jail beds being added next year, he noted that the order does not prevent the county from holding prisoners in certain medical facilities.

“I think the sheriff misreads this,” Herman said. “There will actually be less than 200 (prisoners) that they’ll have to release.”

Faced with spiraling numbers of arrests and barely a trickle of new jail beds, Gates initiated his controversial “cite and release” policy in 1986 as a last-ditch measure to hold down overcrowding throughout the jail system. Even though the new inmate population limits represent the thrust of the latest legal action, the proposed order contains a provision about Gates’ early-release policy that would also mark a significant development.

“To avoid exceeding these population limits, and violations of other orders of this court, the sheriff or his designee may release prisoners from the Orange County jails when any cell or housing unit has reached 90% of the population cap,” the proposed order reads. It would further direct that the sheriff “shall release prisoners to prevent any cell or housing unit exceeding its population cap.”

If approved by Judge William P. Gray--who issued the original 1978 order and who has scheduled a Dec. 11 hearing on the latest request--the new order would give official federal court sanction to Gates’ early-release practice.

The sheriff’s policy helps the county stay in compliance with Gray’s original order, but it infuriates local judges, who want to see their prisoners held for their full sentences. The debate is several years old, but it has taken on new fervor lately as the pressure on the jail system has increased.

Stanford and other judges concede that ending the release policy would not address the problem of overcrowding, but Stanford argues that Gates’ releases have allowed the Board of Supervisors to escape more serious criticism for letting jail crowding worsen.

Refusing to release prisoners early, and therefore forcing overcrowding at the county jails--even to the point of drawing a reprimand from the federal court--would send a strong message to the board, Stanford said.

“The sheriff should quit insulating the board from their responsibility,” Stanford said. “And he should quit violating the law, even if it means hardship to the Board of Supervisors.”