.
Feedback

Sheriffs React to Supreme Court On Prison Overcrowding

Bracing for possible influx of new prisoners after state ordered to reduce population by 40,000.

Local sheriffs braced for a possible influx of inmates at local jails after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the state of California would need to reduce its prison population by as many as 40,000 inmates.

The high court ruled in a 5-4 decision that overcrowding in California's prisons "creates unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that hamper effective delivery of medical and mental health care," and said the state has "failed to meet prisoner's basic health needs."

The court upheld an order issued by a three-judge panel last year that required California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of its capacity - to around 110,000 inmates - within two years.

The state currently houses nearly 144,000 inmates in 33 adult prisons that were built to hold 80,000. The state will need to release or transfer at least 34,000 prisoners to comply with the court's order, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matthew Cate said today. 

The details of how that will be carried out are still being determined, Cate said.

"On an immediate level we have about two weeks to issue a plan on how we will comply," Cate said.

According to the Department of Corrections and Gov. Jerry Brown's office, a majority of the prison population reduction could be achieved by a realignment plan outlined in Assembly Bill 109, which the governor signed in April.

"That will account for a large number," Cate said.

The realignment plan would divert low-risk offenders and parole violators out of state prisons and into local jails or community-based programs.

"I think our goal is not to release inmates at all," Cate said. "Realignment itself would not result in early release."

San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks said he wasn't surprised by today's ruling, and that realignment was the only plan being proposed that would allow the state to comply with the decision.

"Going forward, certain classes of inmates will be doing their time at county jails," Munks said.

Under realignment, the sheriff said that approximately 360 inmates could be added annually to an already overcrowded jail system.

Munks said today's ruling puts added pressure on plans to build a new jail with an appropriate amount of beds in San Mateo County.

"It makes the need more urgent," he said.

Sheriff Michael Hennessey said that San Francisco is prepared to accommodate the potential influx of inmates resulting from the proposed realignment plan.

"San Francisco is fortunate in having a reasonable amount of jail space right now," Hennessey said. "We have about 400 empty beds."

Lt. J.D. Nelson of the Alameda County Sheriff's Office said it was impossible to predict the impact of today's ruling before the state hands down more specific details on how it will be implemented and how many inmates will be transferred.

"Until we find out what numbers the state is going to transfer to us and what money will be behind those numbers, it's difficult to know what impact it's going to have," Nelson said.

- Bay City News

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
Chris Vance March 23, 2013 at 03:00 pm
What are you doing with the excess Undaria pinnatifida that is found? Can we get some of it for ourRead More compost piles at the Pacifica Sanchez Library Garden?