Sheriff Stumps for O.C. Jail Tax in Courtroom

Sheriff Brad Gates on Friday turned a court hearing on contempt charges into a political forum to stump for the jail tax initiative on next month’s ballot and to criticize opponents of a plan to build a jail in Gypsum Canyon.

Gates took the witness stand to explain to Presiding Municipal Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr. why he cited and released 18 inmates last year in violation of state law barring such releases.

But in testifying that the releases had been an oversight that occurred as he tried to comply with a federal court order capping the population at the Central Men’s Jail, Gates expanded upon the subject.

“I’m between a rock and a hard place trying to comply with both federal and state orders regarding the jail, . . . and the bottom line is, we don’t have enough money for more facilities,” Gates said. “I don’t hear anybody on the other side coming forward with any solutions.”

Gates was referring to opponents of Measure J on the May 14 ballot, which would levy a half-cent sales tax increase for criminal justice facilities. If approved, most of the revenue generated is expected to pay for building and operating a proposed 6,720-bed facility in Gypsum Canyon, just east of Anaheim Hills.

Opponents of the Gypsum Canyon proposal are among those opposing Measure J.

“You’re either part of the problem or part of the solution,” Gates said in his testimony. “A lot of people in Anaheim Hills probably don’t like Brad Gates very much right now. But I’m going to be part of the solution.”

Judge Stanford tried to draw Gates back to the purpose of the hearing. The judge pointed out that even though the Legislature gave Gates authority to cite and release prisoners accused of misdemeanors in a bid to reduce jail overcrowding, the sheriff had failed to note the exceptions to that authority--such as those arrested for giving false information to police or accused of violent crimes.

Most of the 18 inmates cited in the contempt charge against Gates were accused of giving false information to police. Other charges included assault with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest and violations of vehicle codes. Thirteen of them failed to appear in court on their scheduled date and had to be rearrested.

Gates testified that though he had been unaware of the cite-and-release limits at the time, he immediately corrected the situation after Judge Stanford pointed them out to him last year. A new directive was then issued to the sheriff’s staff in July, 1990, he said.

“Since then, we have not released a single inmate who has fallen under those limitations, and we’ve been citing and releasing an average of 850 a week,” the sheriff testified.

It was the frustrating cycle of arrest and rearrest that prompted Stanford and six other judges of the Municipal Court in Santa Ana to order Gates two weeks ago to appear in court under a contempt threat. They said at the time that they did not intend to punish Gates with a fine or imprisonment, but to get him to state publicly that he will stop releasing inmates illegally. Apparently, they were not aware that Gates had stopped the practice almost a year ago.

After a three-hour hearing, Stanford said he would announce May 9 whether he would find Gates in contempt.

Gates was held in contempt by Central Municipal Judge Gary P. Ryan four years ago for similar violations, but the judge purged the contempt order after Gates agreed to make changes that would transfer more inmates to facilities away from the main jail.

Most of Friday’s hearing revolved around Gates’ testimony. At first, the sheriff provided brief, unemotional answers to cross-examination by Philip D. Kohn, the special counsel appointed to represent the court. But as he answered more questions, the sheriff seemed to warm up to having the podium.

Gates delivered such a lengthy speech about jail conditions, Measure J and public safety that Kohn finally responded: “When this gets on radio, you’re going to have to give equal time.”

Gates’ targets included two members of the Board of Supervisors, Don R. Roth and Gaddi H. Vasquez, who have refused to support condemnation of the land needed to build a jail in Gypsum Canyon. Both oppose the plan. Because the Irvine Co., which owns the property, has refused to sell it to the county, it will take four of the five board members to approve land condemnation.

“I’ve gone one on one with those two supervisors, but so far I’ve been unsuccessful,” Gates testified. “If one of them will come forward and help us condemn that land before the May 14 vote, I’m convinced it will make the difference in getting voters to support Measure J.”

The sheriff told Stanford that with thousands of inmates going through the jail system, it is impossible not to make some “errors.” When such violations of the federal court order occurred, Gates said, they were brought to the attention of U.S. District Judge William P. Gray.

Judge Gray, Gates emphasized, treated them as “errors”--and not as issues worthy of a contempt citation.

Gates also told Judge Stanford he could understand the court’s frustration in seeing people released from jail early; Gates authorized the early release of 50,000 inmates last year.

But releases are the only way to comply with the federal court order, he said.

Stanford said he is puzzled by these “errors.”

“Am I to understand you correctly that you did not know about these limitations (to the cite-and-release authority) until I pointed them out to you?” he asked.

“I was not aware of it until then, sir,” Gates responded. “But once I became aware of it, we immediately changed our policy.”

Gates’ corrections chief, Assistant Sheriff Jerry Krans, said later outside the courtroom that he had been aware of the limits, but they had not been brought to Gates’ attention. He said it was necessary to ignore the limits at the time to meet the federal court’s demands.

Judge Stanford wanted to know why Gates could not put inmates who had to be jailed by court order into the Theo Lacy or James A. Musick medium-security facilities, which are not subject to a federal court cap.

And Stanford had another question: Why not just pay the fine of $10 per day per inmate that Judge Gray threatened to impose for overcrowding, so the sheriff could also comply with state court orders?

Gates responded that it was necessary to place a “voluntary cap” on the Lacy and Musick facilities, both for humane reasons and to comply with state guidelines on population capacities.

Those facilities are constantly 30% over capacity, he said.

“I not only have a responsibility to provide humane living conditions for inmates, but overcrowding causes tremendous stress on the jail staff. I’m extremely proud of how our staff has performed in these difficult times,” Gates said.

Deputy County Counsel James L. Turner, representing the sheriff, asked Gates: “Was it ever your intention to not comply with a state court order?”

“No sir,” Gates said.

Gates pointed out repeatedly that he took Gray’s federal order on controlling the jail population to be the priority.

“Judge Gray looked me right in the eye and told me that I was not to violate his order,” Gates said. “I took that to mean he was serious.”

But Judge Stanford asked Gates: “Did Judge Gray tell you it was OK to violate a state court order?”

“No sir,” Gates said.

After the hearing, Gates said frustrations such as those expressed by the Municipal Court judges will not go away until the county finally does something about providing more jail beds.

“As the sheriff, I don’t like to see people released who should be in jail,” he said. “But if we didn’t, we wouldn’t have room to put everyone.”