Sheriff Seen in a Catch-22 on Jail Overcrowding : Litigation: Municipal judges argue to reinstate contempt-of-court order against Brad Gates for releasing prisoners early.

An appellate court judge said Tuesday that jail overcrowding has placed Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates in an unwinnable Catch-22 situation by forcing him to choose between competing court orders in administering jail operations.

The comments by Associate Justice Henry T. Moore Jr. came as justices on the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana heard oral arguments in a case that pits Gates against a group of Orange County Municipal Court judges over jail operations.

The municipal judges have tried to hold Gates in contempt of court and jail him for releasing some prisoners early from Orange County jails, but their contempt order was thrown out last year by a Superior Court judge. That judge cited federal court rulings that require Gates to improve conditions at the jail, including minimizing overcrowding.

The municipal judges were seeking Tuesday to have their contempt order reinstated.

From the tone of the three justices’ remarks, attorneys on both sides said after the hearing that they believe the appellate court is likely to rule against the Municipal Court judges. That would mean that Gates would not face a 30-day jail sentence or fines for contempt of court.

But Philip D. Kohn, an attorney representing the municipal judges, said that even if the appellate court rules for Gates, the judges may appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Kohn argued that the Municipal Court’s authority is at stake in the debate.

“It’s not up to the sheriff to determine what is or isn’t constitutional,” Kohn said. “What’s at stake is to see that the ability of the Municipal Court orders are obeyed.”

The origins of the appeal date from May, 1991, when a municipal judge ruled that Gates was in contempt.

Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr., the presiding judge in the Municipal Court in Santa Ana, had found Sheriff Gates guilty of 17 instances of “unlawful inmate releases” and ordered him to spend 30 days in jail.

But in September, 1991, Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore overturned Stanford’s ruling and said Stanford had erred by citing Gates for contempt because Gates was trying to comply with the federal mandate that prohibits overcrowding at the county’s main jail. The jail holds 4,400 under the federal cap, even though it was originally intended to house 3,203 prisoners.

Gates declined comment on Tuesday, but he has said in the past that if he had not released the 17 prisoners he would have risked violating the standing federal order.

Judge Moore expressed sympathy for Gates’ dilemma and said it presented a Catch-22 situation.

Municipal judges are upset because it is the very people they have sentenced that were given early releases from the county’s main jail.

Kohn told appellate judges that although there is a federal mandate, it applies only to the county’s main jail and not the other branch jail facilities. He also said it would be easy for groups of two or three prisoners to be sent to other jails instead of releasing 17 prisoners who had been sentenced at the Municipal Court level, which led to Gates’ prosecution.

Kohn said the municipal judges contend that releasing prisoners because of overcrowding sends a message to criminals to accept the jail time, knowing they will be released earlier than their sentences stipulate.

“If courts don’t have the threat to keep criminals in jail, their power will be greatly diminished,” Kohn said.

Thomas C. Agin, who represents Gates, said the problem of overcrowded jails does not stop at the county’s main jail but also includes other jails.

“All the jails are over the limit,” Agin said, although he acknowledged that the limits are self-imposed by each jail facility.

“The basic question is whether the Municipal Court can tell the sheriff how to run a jail,” Agin said.

Both county and municipal officials have expressed concern over the costs of pursuing a decision.

Kohn estimated that the municipal judges have spent $40,000 to press their case against Gates.

Judge Stanford said in an interview that the importance of this case justifies the cost because it touches on a problem that will be seen in the future.

“It’s an argument about separation of powers. It has a lot of importance and involves significant issues statewide.”

During the hearing, District Judge Edward J. Wallin mentioned that the county’s failure to build a new jail only exacerbated the problem.

Agin agreed.

“There was an election a year ago, and people in Orange County voted . . . down” a measure that would have raised sales taxes to pay for a new jail,” he said. “If you want more people in jail you have to pay for them.”