Judges Barred From Sentencing Convicts to Work Furlough Sites

In a ruling that could have statewide impact, an appeals court Tuesday stripped judges of their power to sentence convicts to residential work furlough centers instead of jail.

The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that only the county Probation Department, not a judge, can send a convicted criminal to a work furlough center--and then only if the center is under contract with the county government.

Work furlough centers have been used for 25 years in California but only under strict supervision of local governments.

In recent years in San Diego County, however, a new type of work furlough center has found some acceptance among judges frustrated by jail overcrowding. These centers have no connection to the government and are not obliged to follow its rules about enforcing supervision.

The San Diego County district attorney’s office argued that judges were abusing their authority by sending criminals to unregulated centers and that the lack of supervision made the centers breeding places for crime and a menace to the public.

The boosters of the work furlough centers disputed the claims and said the centers save taxpayer money by charging defendants for their upkeep. At the centers, defendants are free to come and go as long as they check in at night.

In a case involving an El Cajon man who pleaded guilty to marijuana possession, the appeals court agreed with prosecutors that a judge abused his authority in allowing the defendant to serve his 200-day sentence in a private work furlough center in San Diego that is not under Probation Department supervision.

The case was closely watched by those involved in law enforcement throughout the state. If the use of unregulated centers had been upheld, the movement was expected to spread to other counties with crowded jails and tight budgets, including Los Angeles.

For one thing, lack of regulation by county government decreases overhead costs and makes it more profitable to run the centers, critics noted.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Louis Boyle hailed the decision as “a dramatic improvement in public safety” both for the neighborhoods where the centers are located and for the community at large.

“I cannot fathom why a judge would want the authority to send someone to an unknown place run by unknown people with unknown background,” Boyle said.