Showing posts with label jails. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jails. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Bend over, please

On Monday, in a 5-4 decision that was to be expected, the United States Supreme Court announced that it is subservient to jail guards in importance. So much for that separation of powers and checks and balances you learned about in government class.

As Scott Greenfield pointed out yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy informed the public that the Supreme Court is "in no position to second guess the judgments of corrections officers..." This is the same Court that has told school districts to admit all students regardless of race, the same Court that has told states they cannot kill an inmate if they can't follow their own protocols, the same Court that has told legislators that their latest law is unconstitutional. But, despite that, this Court feels the need to show deference to the guards at the county jail.

And, because the Supreme Court feels it cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of a jail guard, anyone arrested for any offense, no matter how trivial, is now fair game for one of the most humiliating things a person can be subjected to - a strip search. Make no bones about it, getting arrested is one of the worst experiences a person can go through. Feeling the cuffs lock against the wrists, being forced into the back of a squad car, having to beg a friend or relative to post a bond.

The majority of arrests are for non-violent offenses. There's not much danger of a motorist arrested for driving while intoxicated shoving a weapon or dope up their butt in the few seconds before the officer comes to the window. The person arrested on an outstanding traffic warrant is not likely to be hiding any contraband in a body cavity. Yet, in the name of not missing the chance to humiliate anyone under arrest, the Supremes have declared that the jail guard can order those folks to strip, bend over and spread their cheeks.

It's bad enough watching the Supreme Court blindly accept a police officer's rationale for why he decided to infringe upon the bad guy's Fourth Amendment rights. It's obvious that the members of the Court are out of touch with what really goes on in the streets and parking lots of this country.

But what else should we expect from a government that says it's okay for the airport equivalent of mall cops to scope and grope people who want to board a plane? If it's okay for Joe Businessman then it's okay for the person who got pulled over after having a couple of drinks. It's all a downward spiral and we're just waiting to see who can make it to the bottom first.

Of course this decision certainly makes waiting on the Supremes' proclamation on the Affordable Health Care Act an interesting exercise. If the Court is going to defer to jail guards when it comes to strip searching everyone who's brought against their will into the county jail, how on earth will they justify striking down the individual mandate to purchase health insurance?

The jail guards aren't elected officials. Hell, some of them are fresh out of the academy. They haven't a clue as to what's constitutional or why. But, dammit, they know more about jail than the justices on the Supreme Court.

A cynic might say that the Supremes decided on the outcome of the case and then scrambled to figure out a rationale. And, it would appear that the only rationale the five in the majority could come up with was deferring to the experience of the jailers.

Nothing short of pathetic.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Staggering dockets won't relieve jail overcrowding

Harris County Sheriff Adrian Garcia has taken it upon himself to try to resolve the county's long-term problem of jail overcrowding. It's too bad that it won't solve a thing.

There are 22 district (felony) criminal courts and 15 county courts-at-law (misdemeanor) in the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center. There is a "holdover" cell in each courtroom that is supposed to hold no more than 19 inmates. As they would say across the pond, that guideline is honored more in the breach than in the observance.

There is a giant holding cell in the tunnel between the county jail and the courthouse that can hold roughly 250 inmates. Now do the math. Thirty-seven courts with 19 inmates is a bit more than 250. The overflow inmates are lined up in the tunnel where they wait.

What is one to do?

Sheriff Garcia decided to stagger the times he has inmates delivered to courtrooms.This means that an attorney may walk into a courtroom and have no idea when his client might be brought over.

The problem with Sheriff Garcia's plan to alleviate overcrowding is that it doesn't. His plan only treats the symptoms, not the disease.

The way to reduce jail overcrowding in Harris County is to find a way to get those people in jail awaiting trial out of jail. Every person brought into the county jail is innocent unless proven guilty. To force someone to stay behind bars due to the arbitrariness of the county's bail schedule is a crime.

The first blog post I wrote dealt with the need to increase the number of personal bonds issued. Every person without a prior criminal record arrested for a non-violent offense should be released with a personal bond. The only reason to keep them behind bars is to coerce a plea out of them. Just wave that offer of time served in front of their face and they will gladly plead guilty to something they didn't do just to get out of that hellhole.

The other way to reduce the jail population in Harris County is to issue citations and summonses for non-violent misdemeanor drug possession cases. Confiscate the goods, issue the person a ticket along with a summons ordering them to appear in court on a certain day at a certain time under threat of arrest.

We need to do away with this notion that anyone charged with domestic assault must be held without bail until such time as he can see a magistrate so a temporary protective order can be issued. If we can find judges who are more than willing to hang around the courthouse (or by a fax machine) at all hours of the night to sign fill-in-the-blank warrants authorizing forcible blood draws, certainly we can find a judge or two who can sign an emergency protective order on short notice. It's not like they're going to read it or set a hearing to determine whether it's necessary or not.

Sheriff Garcia's plan addresses none of these issues.

Monday, May 2, 2011

One lump or two?

Oh, the hypocrisy of those limited government folks never ceases to amaze. As Grits for Breakfast reports, Teabaggers in Smith County (that would be northeast Texas, for those of y'all not in the know), have come out in favor of (yet another) referendum to build a new jail.

Nevermind the fact that voters in Smith County (hardly a liberal stronghold) have said "thanks, but no thanks" on four previous occasions. Nevermind the debt the construction project would impose on county coffers.  Nevermind the fact that it costs Smith County less to house a few inmates in other counties than it would to pay for a new jail. Nevermind that the majority of folks being housed in jails across this state are being held for nonviolent crimes.

In other words, nevermind the fact that the Teabaggers proclaim themselves to be champions of limited government. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about lobbying for restrictions to be placed on the constitutional rights of those accused of criminal activity. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about creating new crimes or harsher penalties because of one bad incident that occurred. The same folks that tell the world we need less government, not more, have no compunction about allowing the police to intrude more and more into the lives of ordinary citizens -- whether it be through "back-dooring" our e-mail or cell phone communications or fondling people boarding planes.

You want to reduce the cost of incarcerating our fellow citizens? How about personal bonds for folks charged with minor nonviolent offenses who have no prior criminal record? How about allowing police officers to issue tickets for possession of trace amounts of marijuana instead of hauling someone off to jail? How about more pretrial diversion programs for folks without criminal records? How about reducing bonds so that defendants don't have to sit around in jail until their cases are disposed of?

The problem with those ideas, though, is that they're logical.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Welfare, Harris County-style

So it looks like Harris County and the City of Houston have agreed on a plan to foot part of the costs for a stadium for the Houston Dynamo just across US59 from Minute Maid Park. The stadium will also be used for TSU football games (seriously, they still play football over there?)

Now it's all nice and good that the city and the county have each agreed to spend $10 million on infrastructure improvements in the area - but isn't this the same county that just cut funding on indigent defense? Somehow the county can find the money to build a sandbox derby track, a man-made lake in Katy and a soccer stadium, but they insist on reducing the amount of money paid to attorneys to represent indigent defendants.

Oh, the deal also calls for a financing district to be created in downtown that will fund the construction of a new inmate processing center -- even though the voters of Harris County have consistently voted against building a new jail.

Welfare? Well, hell, we're all for it in Harris County -- only we take the money from the poor and hand it over to the wealthy.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Inspection turns up problems in the city jail, too

This time it's the City of Houston facing criticism over the conditions at its two municipal jails. According to the Houston Chronicle, a court-appointed inspector, the city's two jails are overcrowded and filthy and need to be replaced.

The problems are so severe that the city may not be able to tap into federal funds to screen inmates for immigration status, as that program would require the city to hold those inmates until Immigration and Customs Enforcement decided to pick them up.

City jails have been under court-ordered inspections since a lawsuit over the jails' conditions in 1989. Up through June 2008, the inspections were carried out by criminal justice consultant Gordon Kamka (now deceased). His last report (in June 2008) was just two pages long and noted that some phones weren't working and some inmates had been forced to choose between having a mattress or having a blanket.

Either Mr. Kamka wasn't looking, didn't care or covered up the problems, because in May 2009, the new inspector, David Bogard, found, shall we say, a shitload of problems.

Here are the highlights:

• • The frequent use of “interlocking,” a controversial restraint technique in which a person's hands are cuffed behind the back and connected to shackled legs in a way that forces an inmate to lie on his stomach or side on the floor. The report says interlocking has been discontinued by many law enforcement agencies across the country because of “concerns about it being degrading and potentially medically harmful.”

• • Inadequate investigation of a death in custody in November 2008 in which police behavior was examined but not any potential problems in the jail.

• • Food that was improperly cooled in refrigerators in a kitchen area that had been cited by the city health department for unsanitary conditions and gnats.

• • Inmates who had stayed in the jail for days without being arraigned.

• • “Unacceptable” delays in following up on inmate medical care.


Police officials said they are confident that Mr. Bogard's most recent inspection (this month) will show that improvements have been made. The city thinks building a new jail/intake facility and turning its operation over to Harris County would be a good idea. The voters disagreed last year in rejecting the proposal in a referendum.

Here's an idea for the powers-that-be in Houston -- how about issuing more personal bonds on minor cases? It's absurd to fill the jails with people charged with driving on suspended licenses, possession of small amounts of marijuana or criminal trespass. Think fishing -- catch and release.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

The new capital punishment


On August 1, 2008, Arturo Chavez, a 17-year old illegal immigrant and student at Clear Creek High School, was stopped by League City (TX) Police and arrested for driving without a valid Texas driver's license. He was taken to the League City police station where, according to the cops, he ran out a door and tried to climb a fence. Arturo, who stood 5'3" and weighed about 125 pounds, was beaten by four League City cops and tasered multiple times.


EMTs took Arturo to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and then returned him to League City officers for processing into the Galveston County Jail. No officers reported any injuries. At the GCJ, Arturo was placed in solitary confinement. Despite being warned that Arturo was suicidal, GCJ officials left him alone in his cell.


Three days later Arturo was dead. He had hung himself with a blanket.


It wasn't the first time that an inmate in the GCJ ended up dead. On February 6, 2008, a 24-year old Galveston man who had been picked up on municipal warrants died in custody after suffering multiple seizures.


Capital punishment is authorized in Texas for capital murder and aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14, not for driving without a license or not paying municipal traffic tickets.


Galveston County isn't the first county to kill off its inmates due to incompetence, negligence and neglect, and it won't be the last. The Harris County Jail has been investigated for over 100 inmate deaths since January 1, 2001.


While going to jail isn't a pleasant experience -- it shouldn't be a deadly experience. As no one in Austin or Washington, D.C. wants to be labled as being a defender of those in custody, the only means we have at our disposal to bring these stories to an end is to obtain judgments against those ultimately responsible for these senseless deaths.