Response - Office of the District AttorneyResponse from the Office of the District AttorneyPublishedJune 15, 2026

The District Attorney agrees that familiarity with the operation of the county jail system is beneficial to public officials who have authority to direct funding to the Jails or who otherwise have oversight of the Sheriff’s Department. While the District Attorney recognizes the importance of understanding the conditions under which incarcerated persons and Sheriff's personnel operate, the finding does not properly apply to the District Attorney because it overstates the relationship between jail inspections and the ability of the District Attorney to address the challenges identified throughout the report. The District Attorney does not control jail facilities, jail staffing, jail operations, inmate classification, facility maintenance, transportation systems, treatment capacity, capital planning, or funding decisions. Nor does the District Attorney control judicial detention decisions, court calendars, trial scheduling, or sentencing. 350 RHODE ISLAND STREET, SUITE 400N, NORTH BUILDING∙ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103 RECEPTION: (628) 652-4000 ∙ FACSIMILE: (628) 652-4001 Accordingly, while site visits may provide additional context, they do not expand the District Attorney's authority to address the infrastructure, staffing, operational, and funding challenges identified in the report.

The District Attorney agrees that the Sheriff did not convene a Crowding Committee. However, it is unclear whether the factual and policy prerequisites for convening such a committee were met, either at the time of the report’s publication or presently. Sheriff's Policy 511.2 provides that "[i]n the event that the incarcerated person population remains over capacity or continues to increase, a crowding committee will be formed at the direction of the Sheriff . . . .". Whether those conditions have been satisfied is a determination committed in the first instance to the Sheriff's Department. Further, publicly available Sheriff's Department data suggests that current population levels may differ materially from those discussed in the report. As of June 9, 2026, the reported jail population was 1,157, with a 30-day average daily population of 1,177 and a median population of 1,173. Those figures are substantially below the levels cited in the report and represent less than 80 percent of the rated jail capacity. Accordingly, the District Attorney lacks sufficient information to conclude that the conditions contemplated by Policy 511.2 have been satisfied. Additionally, it is unclear that convening a Crowding Committee would materially address the underlying causes identified in the report. The report recognizes that the current jail population largely reflects individuals charged with felony offenses, including a substantial number charged with serious or violent crimes, and that misdemeanor-only arrestees generally do not become part of the long-term housed population. The report also notes that current jail populations are simply approaching levels previously experienced by the system prior to the extraordinary reductions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. To the extent the finding suggests that jail capacity concerns can be materially addressed through actions within the authority of the District Attorney's Office, the District Attorney disagrees. The District Attorney does not determine jail capacity, control facility operations, manage detention resources, or possess unilateral authority to release incarcerated individuals whose continued detention has been ordered by the court pursuant to statutory and constitutional standards designed to protect public safety. While the report expresses concern regarding available capacity, tellingly it does not identify specific categories of incarcerated individuals who could be safely released in a manner that would materially reduce population pressures while remaining consistent with public-safety considerations, statutory requirements, and judicial detention orders. Indeed, because detention decisions are ultimately made by the courts under constitutional and statutory standards that include public-safety considerations, many of the individuals contributing to the housed population are already subject to judicial determinations that continued detention is warranted. While the District Attorney agrees that jail population trends and available capacity warrant continued attention, the report itself identifies a complex set of contributing factors—none of which is controlled by the District Attorney. To the extent the report suggests that jail population reductions are readily achievable through actions of criminal justice stakeholders after a convening of the Crowding Committee, the District Attorney respectfully disagrees.