Judge Gives O.C. Sheriff 30 Days for Contempt : Jails: Gates is ordered to halt early releases or else. But another judge has ordered him to relieve the persistent overcrowding. ‘I can’t create miracles,’ sheriff says.

Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates was ordered Friday to spend 30 days in jail and pay $17,000 in fines unless he halts the practice of releasing prisoners early to avoid overcrowded jails.

Gates, the first California sheriff sentenced for a practice followed by many departments statewide, submitted a plan to the court Friday under which he could stop the releases by Jan. 1. But Municipal Court Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr. ordered Gates to comply by Nov. 1, and said the sheriff’s plan essentially “asked the court to look the other way and ignore the violation of law” over the next five months.

The sheriff sat erect and expressionless in the defendant’s chair as the judge read the sentence, which gives Gates until Nov. 1 to stop releasing prisoners early. Outside the courtroom, the shaken lawman said he did not believe it was possible to meet the judge’s Nov. 1 deadline.

“I’m a little disappointed that the judge didn’t see that I’ve done all that I can do,” Gates said. Asked if he thought he might go to jail, the sheriff said, “I’m extremely concerned and truly surprised the judge sentenced me to 30 days.

“This is an extremely unfortunate moment for me--a guy who has been working for justice all of his life to be charged with violating the law.”

Gates repeated his complaint that the county is caught between a federal judge’s order to avoid jail overcrowding and municipal court judges’ desire to incarcerate the defendants they sentence. The sheriff was charged with contempt of court in 1985 for operating overcrowded jails, and now faces a jail sentence for not overcrowding the jails.

“I can’t create miracles,” Gates said. “I don’t know how they expect me to pull answers out of a hat.”

Stanford said he has met with county officials trying to resolve the issue since May. On May 10, Gates was found guilty on 17 counts of contempt for his policy of reducing jail sentences for many prisoners by about 10% to make room in the jail. On Friday, the judge said he still believes the sheriff can avoid the early releases.

“Even if it involves the overcrowding of certain facilities, the sheriff does have the ability to comply,” Stanford said.

But Gates said he would continue to refuse additional overcrowded conditions in the jails because it could endanger the guards and prisoners, and it would violate the minimum conditions ordered by U.S. District Court Judge William P. Gray.

Stanford also said he hopes Gates is never forced to serve the jail time but, if he is, he suggested that the sentence might be carried out at a location outside of Orange County because he wanted the full penalty imposed, and “our jail system is notorious for early releases.”

The Sheriff’s Department has been routinely releasing about 850 prisoners each week to relieve overcrowding, but Gates said he could comply with the judge’s order if he had an additional 400 jail beds. The county’s five jails typically house about 4,400 prisoners now, although they were built to hold only 3,203.

Under a 1978 lawsuit brought against the county by the American Civil Liberties Union, the federal court limited the number of prisoners that can be housed in the county’s Central Men’s Jail in Santa Ana. Stanford has said the county’s four other jail facilities are only under “voluntary” limits and that they could be used to house the prisoners being released.

But the attorney for the ACLU who filed the federal lawsuit, Richard Herman, said after the sentencing that even without population limits, the addition of more inmates would violate living standards for sleeping and eating that were also ordered by the judge.

“I watched a municipal court judge order the sheriff to violate the Constitution and the rights of a class of plaintiffs that I represent,” Herman said. “I think the sheriff is entitled to be protected for the actions he has to take to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners. . . . There is no room for more prisoners.”

Under the plan Gates submitted to the judge Friday, the county would increase the number of prisoners who serve their sentences at home by wearing an electronic bracelet that is traceable through a telephone. The plan also called for sending more prisoners to the County Work Program instead of jail. And it said another 250 beds will be available Jan. 1 when an expansion of the existing Theo Lacy Branch Jail in Orange is completed.

Gates said those changes will produce another 400 beds in the county’s jail system. He said a second phase of the Theo Lacy expansion scheduled to be completed in November, 1992, would add about another 200 beds.

“What staff has presented to this court is a way to provide much-needed beds in as timely a fashion as possible,” Assistant County Counsel James Turner, representing Gates, told the judge. “I would ask the court to allow the sheriff to follow the U.S. Constitution and not violate the rights of the inmates” with additional overcrowding.

Turner added: “The sheriff is not here because he did anything wrong; he’s here because he’s trying to follow the Constitution.”

Stanford ordered that Gates pay the maximum fine possible--$1,000 for each of 17 contempt charges. The judge said Gates faced a maximum jail sentence of 85 days, but that he reduced the order because the sheriff and county staff had been cooperative and shown a good-faith effort to comply.

Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said Friday that he was it was unfortunate Gates was blamed for problems beyond his control, adding that he didn’t know what the county could do to meet the judge’s new Nov. 1 deadline.

“Maybe we’ll have to come up with something exciting or new; maybe take over the judge’s chambers,” Riley said. “It isn’t like we aren’t trying to do something about this problem.”

The county supervisors have been considering the construction of a new jail for nearly 15 years. Their plans have been repeatedly stalled, however, by the difficulty in finding a location and the money for construction.

In May, Orange County voters overwhelmingly rejected a half-cent sales tax proposed by the supervisors to finance the construction of a new jail in Gypsum Canyon near Anaheim. The vote on the tax was held May 14, just four days after Stanford found Gates guilty of contempt.

Stanford told Gates that the early releases had caused a “lack of respect for the court system” because judges were left “without the ability to enforce orders.”

Gates told reporters that he and his attorneys would examine whether Stanford’s order could be appealed on the possibility that “the judge exceeded his authority.” If not, and no other solution can be found, Gates said: “Then I’m in trouble.”

History of Jail Overcrowding

Here is a chronology of important events in the controversy concerning overcrowding at the Orange County Jail.

Nov. 10, 1968--Construction completed at main men’s jail in downtown Santa Ana.

Sept. 11, 1975--American Civil Liberties Union files class-action lawsuit over jail conditions in Orange County.

May 4, 1978--U.S. District Judge William P. Gray orders the county to improve conditions in the jail.

March 18, 1985--Gray finds Sheriff Brad Gates and the five county supervisors in contempt for not heeding his 1978 order and fines them.

September, 1985--Gates begins releasing low-risk defendants with citations, rather than booking them into jail, because of crowded conditions.

Nov. 13, 1985--Construction begins on the Intake/Release Center next to the main jail.

October, 1986--Gates expands the cite-and- release program for newly arrested defendants arrested on warrants issued because they had failed to appear in court on previous charges.

Nov. 26, 1986--Supervisors approve a feasibility study for a jail in a remote county area to hold up to 5,000 inmates; selected as potential sites are Gypsum Canyon/Coal Canyon, Fremont Canyon, Irvine Lake and Chiquita Canyon.

July 15, 1987--Supervisors choose Gypsum Canyon/Coal Canyon site for a jail that will house about 6,000 inmates.

Dec. 7, 1987--In an effort to derail a lawsuit against the county by Orange City Council members, supervisors agree to reduce the inmate capacity of the Theo Lacy Branch Jail and to disallow maximum-security inmates.

October, 1988--Sheriff’s Department announces that some cells in the recently opened Intake/Release Center in Santa Ana have two beds, despite state regulations against double-bunking. The second bunks remain unoccupied.

Jan. 11, 1989--Supervisors approve environmental impact report for expansion of Theo Lacy Branch Jail in Orange, despite continuing lawsuit over the project.

Jan. 25, 1989--State Board of Corrections decides not to penalize the county if it violates state policy by double-bunking 216 cells in the year-old Intake/Release Center.

Dec. 3, 1990--In a report ordered by Judge Gray, a federal monitor strongly endorses Gypsum Canyon and urges the county to press ahead with plans there.

April 23, 1991--Orange County Municipal Court judges charge Sheriff Gates with contempt of court for releasing prisoners before their sentences are complete to relieve jail overcrowding.

May 10, 1991--Sheriff Gates is found guilty of 17 counts of contempt of court by Municipal Court judges.

May 14, 1991--Voters reject Measure J, the half-cent sales tax to pay for construction of the proposed Gypsum Canyon jail, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1.

May 16, 1991--Judge Gray declines to expand the ACLU lawsuit over conditions in the jails to the four facilities not covered in the original federal court order.

Aug. 2, 1991--Sheriff Gates is sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $17,000 for failing to comply with municipal judge’s order to stop the early release of prisoners. The sentence is stayed until Nov. 1, giving the sheriff 90 days to comply.