Court Rebukes O.C. Judges for Attempts to Jail Sheriff

A state appeals court handed local judges a stinging defeat Friday, ruling that they were wrong in trying to jail Sheriff Brad Gates for his controversial practice of freeing inmates to avoid overcrowding in the County Jail.

“The Orange County jails are full,” wrote Presiding Justice David Sills for a unanimous 4th District Court of Appeal. “Incredibly, because the sheriff will not lock up everybody sent him, some judges of the Central Municipal Court now want to put him in jail. . . . This is akin to shooting the messenger who bears ill tidings.”

For more than a decade, Gates has been under a federal court order to control the jail population despite an ever-rising county arrest rate. But the sheriff’s so-called “cite and release” policy frustrated Municipal Court judges who handed down sentences that were never served. So last year Presiding Municipal Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr. tried Gates for contempt, convicted him and sentenced him to 30 days in his own jail.

The sheriff never served that sentence because a Superior Court judge overturned the conviction, which again infuriated the Municipal Court judges and set the stage for the appellate court battle.

Gates, who had not yet read the decision, hailed the ruling, saying he had been “demeaned” and “demoralized” by the litigation, which “ridicules” the justice system.

Stanford, who lead the Municipal Court judges’ fight against the sheriff, was on vacation and could not be reached for comment. The judges’ private counsel, Philip D. Kohn, was out the office and unavailable to comment.

The appeals court noted in its 23-page ruling that “Sheriff Gates comes to us after traveling a long and rocky road,” summarizing 14 years of jail-related litigation in federal and state courts.

“In finding the sheriff guilty of contempt,” Sills wrote, “the presiding judge of the Municipal Court delivered a civics lesson about the separation of powers. He should have discussed federalism.

“The single overriding fact here is (the) federal court order. It romps through this case like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla. Neither the presiding judge of the Municipal Court, nor we, nor even the California Supreme Court has any legal authority to affect that order. One may applaud the order; one may deplore it. It makes no difference. The sheriff had no choice but to obey it.”

The decision came two days after a disturbance at the Orange County Jail, which Gates and others blamed in part on overcrowding.

About 30 inmates at the Intake/Release Center in downtown Santa Ana, which is part of the jail, commandeered a recreation room and tore bolted tables from the floor and telephones from the walls. After a seven-hour standoff with deputies, the inmates returned to their cells.

Gates called the incident “a warning bell” and urged the Board of Supervisors to move ahead on the issue of building a new jail.

“I pray to God we get the solution before someone has to die to make this happen,” Gates said. “I can’t build the jail. I can’t pick the site. I can’t raise the money. . . . This case should just highlight the political embarrassment of this county.”

The sheriff said the litigation was a “black mark” on his reputation and maintained that when the Superior Court overturned the contempt action, the Municipal Court judges should have dropped the matter.

“It’s appalling to me that they continued to use the taxpayers’ money and courtroom facilities” for the appeal, Gates said. He added that Stanford should be forced to repay the costs. Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Roger R. Stanton said he was “very delighted” with the appellate court ruling.

“I didn’t see anything productive at all (in the Municipal Court judges’ appeal). . . . Our sheriff is doing the best he can. I’m pleased that this is off his shoulder.”

Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said he also was pleased with the ruling, calling it a “strong affirmation of the sheriff’s and county’s position.”

He added that he hoped the appellate opinion would conclude the legal battle between the Municipal Court judges and the sheriff.

“Now that two courts have rendered decisions that affirm the sheriff’s and county’s position, I would like to think this will be the end of it.” In the end, he said, “it’s the taxpayers who pay for the needless appeals.”

Both supervisors, however, that the court battle underscored the real problem in the county: lack of jail space.

But with the no real funding or location for a new jail, county officials say their hands are tied.

“We’re always looking for possible solutions,” Stanton said.

Crystal C. Sims, director of litigation for Orange County Legal Aid, said that she thought the ruling would keep the jail from further overcrowding but warned that there is “still a very severe problem . . . that’s going to have to be dealt with in some way.”

Richard P. Herman, an attorney who has fought to improve jail conditions, said the decision was “useful and helpful to the sheriff in directing his attention where it should go--to the existing federal court order. . . . Solutions for the problem of jail overcrowding are properly with the administrators of the county government. Things have to change.”

County leaders “have to rethink who they can afford to punish,” Herman said, and building a new jail may not be the only answer. “You don’t have to send everybody to jail. That’s the bottom line.”

The appeals court seemed to agree.

“We hope the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court will take a leadership role in consulting with all of the county municipal courts and sheriff in dealing with a problem which will only become more complicated in coming years,” the justices concluded. “In an era of shrinking funds for public facilities, additional jail capacity to meet the needs of Orange County may be realized only in the distant future.”

Times staff writer Matt Lait contributed to this story.

Gates Versus the Judges

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

Sept. 11, 1975--American Civil Liberties Union files a class-action lawsuit over conditions at the Orange County Jail.

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 putting them in 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 people arrested on warrants issued because they 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.

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

Jan. 25, 1989--The State Board of Corrections decides not to penalize the county if it violates state policy by double-bunking 216 cells in the 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 Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr.

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

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

Sept. 12, 1991--Orange County Superior Court Judge Eileen C. Moore overturns Gates’ conviction and sentence.

Sept. 30, 1991--Municipal Court judges led by Stanford ask the Superior Court judge to reconsider her decision.

Nov. 4, 1991--Moore refuses for a second time to send Gates to jail.

Dec. 4, 1991--The Municipal Court judges ask a state appellate court to find Sheriff Gates guilty of contempt.

June 23, 1992--Justices of the 4th District Court of Appeal hear oral arguments in the dispute.

Aug. 28, 1992--Appeals court finds in Gates’ favor.