Orange County jail officials will join 11 other California county jails such as Los Angeles, San Diego and Ventura which have already implemented procedures for checking the identification of inmates using a federal database to identify immigrants who land in their jails.

A national database, which is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, houses fingerprints of those who’ve had contact with the department, such as having applied for any immigration benefits. The national program implemented in late 2008 will now be used to identify and deport any undocumented immigrants who’ve been arrested and jailed.

The Secure Communities Initiative has identified 18,000 immigrants who have been charged with offenses such as murder and kidnapping)since its inception. 4,000 of those offenders have since been deported. Additionally, 25,000 immigrants who have been charged with lesser crimes have also been deported.

The Orange County Jail already has one of the longest processing time for defendants. There is no word on how this may effect release times for those posting bail.

Reportedly, Judge Steven Perk wants the final decision left in the hands of Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stating, “How do I issue an order to the board of supervisors telling the sheriff how to run the jail… if I don’t have jurisdiction over that person, then I don’t have the authority.”

The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs wanted to put a stop to a new law that was put in effect last month.  The new law allows a reduction in inmate sentences by up to half through ‘good behaviour credits.’

Initially, the law was put forth to ease the overcrowding in prisons and save millions of state budget dollars.  But the sheriff’s union argument spoke to how this move could endanger the public. The Crime Victims United of California group filed a lawsuit claiming the new early release law jeopardizes the public and is unconstitutional.

The decision has also created confusion with local law enforcement officials.  The quandry is to whether the law applies to both county jails as well as state prisons. Over 1,500 have been released from California County jails since the new law came to effect on Jan. 25th of last year. The legislation was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Next month, Judge Perk will have another hearing on whether or not to block any further early releases. 

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. Hopefully, our decision makers won’t make the move that sends the crime makers back on to the streets.

This year, the California Highway Patrol was especially busy on LA’s freeways, having made 236 DUI arrests as compared to the 158 they made last year between 6:01 p.m. Christmas Eve and 6 a.m. Sunday. Miraculously, no fatalities were reported (four occurred during the 2008 holiday week).

Meanwhile, in other Southern California counties, “business” continued to be equally brisk.  The Orange County CHP made 22 DUI arrests — the same as last year, but no fatalities were reported. In San Diego, the CHP reported 38 DUI arrests and 2 fatalities, as compared to 27 arrests last year.

In the entire state, 16 people have died in alcohol related traffic accidents, matching exactly the number of fatalities reported in 2008. Law enforcement officials will be conducting more anti-DUI round ups in nearly every city in Los Angeles County around the New Year’s holiday, through to Jan. 3, 2010.

AVOID, which studies DUI numbers, would like to remind drivers that the year-end holiday period is one of the deadliest times to be out on the road.  They encourage the public to report any drunk drivers they see by calling 911.

The AVOID campaign is funded by a California Office of Traffic Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration grant.

Surprising was the $1.7 million in taxpayer funds that it takes to screen, release and supervise defendants out on the county’s pretrial release program. You would want to balance that against bail bonds: cost to the tax payer Zero ($0.00).

Pretrial release has a purpose which is codified by law: to help the indigent who have no prior record and are accused of non-violent crimes. Again, balance that with our prior post on Van Nuys Jail “Bail vs. O.R.” Clearly, that person wasn’t indigent – he had the means to be bailed out.

Here’s some of what Accredited had to say (bold emphasis added by me):

Many offenders released through a pretrial release program are financially capable of posting a bail bond, and many have done so in the past. Why should taxpayer funds be used to release an arrested individual who has the means to do so themselves? Why not utilize such taxpayer funds to release truly indigent individuals arrested for non-violent, first-time offenses, as was the original intent of pretrial release programs? Why are your tax dollars being used to compete with private enterprise that does a more effective and efficient job of supervising defendants released from jail?

Promoting a dangerous taxpayer-funded release system that offers little to minimal supervision, while attacking the private surety bail industry with hundreds of years of success behind it, highlights government bureacracy at its best! Not only are taxpayers continually being asked to open up their wallets and spend more on government services, but now another bureacratic organization, the National Association of Counties (NACo), is also asking for you to spend more. NACo “represents” county governments nationwide, and is promoting to county elected officials to create or expand their taxpayer-funded pretrial release systems because money bail is wrong.

Public organizations using taxpayer funds should be accountable for the wise use of such funds and transparent in their effectiveness or non-effectiveness. Taxpayer-funded release systems are neither financially or physically accountable for defendants released under such programs; no one is physically keeping in contact with a defendant and/or their family and making sure the defendant appears for court. In addition, pretrial release programs receive no financial penalty if a defendant fails to appear for court. Your tax dollars are funding the program regardless.

Taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs are complaining that they must provide to the public detailed information on the defendants released through their programs; they say such requests are burdomesome and time consuming. Are they afraid of being transparent by providing proof of their effectiveness? National studies have shown the ineffectiveness of unsecured release and thus why such programs fight against transparency.

Don’t be fooled by their rhetoric or claims of helping their communities by releasing people who have a “right” to unsecured release. The real issue is the lack of public safety and potential danger our communities face when defendants are released back into our communities with no accountability for their actions. Public agencies using taxpayer funds should be transparent and open to providing the most effective services possible. Taxpayer-funded pretrial release programs have been shown time and time again to be ineffective by having the highest failure to appear and fugitive rates. Money bail has worked for hundreds of years because it is effective and accountable to the criminal justice system.

Public policy affects public safety.

Bail bondsmen are believed to be lying to the jailers, indicating they are their at the request of the inmate or inmate’s family for bailing the inmates out. But instead are just initially meeting the inmates and are there to solicit bail business from them. Once there, the bail bondsmen are handing out marketing materials which are then dispersed within the jail itself. This entire scenario is actually illegal in California jails, as well as Florida jails. Lake County Sheriff’s are taking the necessary precautions for making sure the local bail bondsmen are abiding by the law.

Here at Greg Rynerson Bail Bonds we take all necessary steps to ensure we follow the law regarding soliciting at the jails we visit. Our bail agents carry no marketing materials with them. We wear normal professional attire without any company insignias. Why would anyone want to engage with a bondsman who is acting illegally? Don’t they already have enough trouble?

The idea is to slowly transfer the current deputies out to patrol the city and slowly train and hire civilians to take there place. Ultimately there will be a deputy or sergeant that oversees the civilian workers. This strategy is already been in place in many other cities including Santa Ana, Anaheim, and Newport Beach. This movement of the current deputies will allow them to keep their jobs as they will end up patrolling the city when a civilian becomes capable (trained) to take their place. The first civilians are set to arrive for duty by January 2010.

Mendez got 6 months in jail, 3 years probation and a 52 week treatment program. And, of course, now he’s lost his job.

Sometimes it seems like there’s a fine line between breaking the law and enforcing the law and sometimes it seems that the same type of people can be found on either side. Granted, you’ll find most stay to their side, but you regularly find the gang member turn’s good cop and visa versa. I wonder if you checked the Orange County Jail and analyzed the people types and the type that gets hired for the local police deparment, how similar they would be?

The Orange County Jail has had allegations ongoing for quite some time, but now things have stepped up with the justice department getting involved. One of the latest cases was most likely broke the straw that broke the camel’s back and caused the increase in interest. A deputy at the Theo Lacy Jail allegedly told some prisoners that another inmate was there because of child molestation, which was not accurate. The inmate was killed.

Its bad enough that these inmates have created wrongdoings to get them placed in jail in the first place, but allowing and adding to the problem should not be the objective of the deputies policing the jail. Federal Civil Rights of Institutional Persons Act protects all inmates from such behavior.