Monterey County Sheriff's Office June 13, 2014 Honorable Marla 0. a ding Judge County of Montere

"Virtually all of the personnel in the Agencies and Departments we interviewed either concurred in principle or fully agreed with our Grand Jury

The recent establishment of Department 11 Arraignment Court by the Monterey Superior Court has made these Recommendations a near perfect solution for both the County and the Sheriff, as well as for the County taxpayers, and for the State which funds much of this security process. There are also potential financial and operational benefits to the Superior Court, itself, which benefits can be enhanced by careful joint planning of this proposed new facility, and its future operation, by all concerned. Response to Grand Jury Finding 2: Whether or not the Court established a department in which the Court assigns arraignment proceedings, has no bearing on any recommendation being a "peifect solution. " It is convenient for the Office oft he Sheriff Court Security and Transportation Division that the Court has consolidated all arraignment proceedings in one courtroom wherever that courtroom may be located. The Office oft he Sheriff cannot venture to guess or provide an opinion on how or what benefits the Superior Court.

The Sheriffs' Department is in a unique position to benefit from incorporating an arraignment courtroom co-located at the Jail. Once the new Jail addition is built and occupied, there may eventually be more prisoners held in the Jail which increase will undoubtedly result in a larger number of required arraignment hearings. Additional prisoners at the Jail will otherwise create an immediate need for more prisoner transports and increased security concerns, if there is no Arraignment Courtroom on site. Response to Grand Jury Finding 3: The Office oft he Sheriff has no opinion on the future population oft he Jail since the consequences ofA BJ09 have not been folly realized and there is no empirical evidence to suggest the jail population will grow as a result. Prisoner transportation to the Salinas Courthouse will continue regardless where the Court conducts arraignments. There may be fewer inmates transported for court proceedings, but this does not necessarily result in fewer trips by Sherif.f's Transportation to the courthouse. The construction ofa n arraignment court with a satellite room for public video viewing oft he proceedings at the Salinas Courthouse should enhance security by reducing the number ofi nmates transported out oft he jails security envelope.

The Superior Court and its Department 11 would also benefit by having a more flexible scheduling agenda for Arraignment hearings, which can even be shared with its Traffic and Misdemeanor Court facilities, as a logical way to avoid transporting incarcerated prisoners for cases involving relatively minor infractions and misdemeanors. Scott Miller, Sheriff-Coroner 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906 www.co.monterey.ea.us/sheriff (831) 755-3700 Response to Grand Jury Finding 4: The Office oft he Sheriffh as no information available to comment on this finding and the Grand Jury's opinion that it is "logical." Command Stafff rom the Office oft he Sheriff have already met with the Superior Court CEO and yourselfi n May and resolved the issue ofi n-custody defendants being transported to the Marina Traffic Court.

The consolidation of all these outstanding in-custody inmate cases to the one onsite courtroom would reduce the distance and risks of the present process of transporting felons, where appropriate and agreeable to the parties. Alternatively, an interim installation and lease of CCTV facilities at the Jail and the Marina Traffic Court could also save costs and risks. Accordingly, these alternatives for the Traffic Court could be considered, if an arraignment facility at the Jail were plamled to be used only by the Superior Court. Response to Grand Jury Finding 5: Command Stafff rom the Office oft he Sheriff have already met with the Superior Court Administrative Officer and yourselfi n May and were able to work out a system that will consolidate cases ofi n-custody inmates. As a result we have rectified the issue oft ransporting in-custody inmates to the Marina Traffic Court. As a result oft he changes the cost reduction is less than $40,000 per year, however security is substantially increased.

Reducing the transportation of prisoners to and from the Natividad Jail to the Salinas Courthouse each year for brief Arraignment hearings is of obvious benefit to public safety. Such changes would mean that there is far less chance of an escape, or efforts to escape, and may reduce violence or injuries from altercations between inmates during transport. While such events are not common, reducing even the possibility is very important to the Public and the County. Response to Grand Jury Finding 6: The Office oft he Sheriffa grees that reducing the number ofi nmates transported outside the security envelope oft he Jail would benefit public safety.

Any effort to quantify the specific financial savings to the County and the Court by adopting the Recommendations is a more difficult process. Nonetheless, there are several aspects of this proposed change that show the likelihood of major financial savings even if not a specific amount. With all the pressures on cutting budgets at all levels of government this could help reduce costs over the next many years without the necessity of laying off badly needed Sheriff's Department law enforcement personnel. Scott Miller, Sheriff-Coroner 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906 www.co.monterev.ea.us/sheriff (831) 755-3700 Response to Grand Jury Finding 7: The office oft he Sheriff agrees "Any effort to quantify the specific financial savings to the County and the Court by adopting the Recommendations is a more difficult process. " The Office oft he Sheriffd oes not believe there will be any specific financial savings. In fact the Office oft he Sheriff believes that this proposal will result in additional staffing costs. The proposal will result in no reduction in transportation staff. Inmate classification and security issues will still require multiple transportation trips for the hearings not held at a jail courtroom. Additionally, as the jail population changes with AB1 09 it is likely that these same transportation deputies will be utilized to transport inmates to medical and other outside appointments. The Office oft he Sheriff estimates that at least four additional escort deputies will be required to move inmates throughout the jail as a result oft he collocation ofa n arraignment facility at the jail at an annual cost ofa t least $600, 700.

However, we do recognize that even if all arraignment proceedings were moved to the proposed Court Arraignment facility at the expanded County Jail, the Sheriffs Office will still have to transport a number of prisoners daily to the Salinas Courthouse for the actual Court criminal trials, as well as for all the attendant pre-trial and other case related hearings and appearances. There appears to be no other alternative to this. Response to Grand Jury Finding 8: The Office oft he Sheriffd oes not support transferring "all arraignment proceedings" to a collocated courthouse on jail grounds, only those for in-custody inmates. The Office oft he Sheriff concurs with the rest oft he finding.

Ifwe assume, for example, a reduction of two full-time deputies because of the proposed change in transporting prisoners, this could reduce salary and benefit costs by more than $200,000 per year, plus eliminating significant vehicular operational costs for fuel and wear and tear and the carbon emissions associated. Each trip avoided saves a 4+ mile roundtrip to and from the Salinas Courthouse. Some of the current contingent of personnel and vehicles will, of course, still need to be used for transport and backup of other Sheriffs Office activities, and deputies are still going to have to escort prisoners from their cells to the Arraignment courtroom. Yet, based on data provided to the Grand Jury by the Executive Offices of the Superior Court, it is clear that the actual number of prisoners would be reduced from the large number presently being transported. Scott Miller, Sheriff-Coroner 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906 www.co.monterey.ea.us/sheriff (831) 755-3700 Response to Grand Jury Finding 9: The Sherif.T's Office believes a collocated courthouse will not reduce the needf or two deputy sheriff's transporting prisoners. The Transportation unit is understaffed at this time to meet the current needs and is often supplemented by jail stafff or medical appointments and high security movements. There will be no overall cost savings as a result oft his proposal. Costs are projected to increase approximately $600,000 per year ift his proposal is adopted. lf the King City or other South County Courthouse were to be re-opened even more stress on an already overburdened transportation unit will result. As previously mentioned a collocated courtroom will increase the needf or four additional escort deputies at a cost of$ 600,000 per year. The escort deputies will be needed to move prisoners to and from the courtroom and the jail while court is in session. This will replace the current practice ofm arshaling the prisoners twice a day to be transported to court.

The Superior Court Executive Offices have advised the Grand Jury that the actual total number of Arraignment Hearings in Department 11 during the last three calendar months of 2013 was 2,885 cases - with 1,043 such hearings during October, 929 in November and 913 in December. Such statistics for a longer period would also give more conclusive evidence of the reduction involved, but were available to us at this time. It should be understood that these figures include some out-of-custody defendants who do not normally have to be transported, and that these numbers reflect only the number of cases, and not the number of defendants appearing for a particular case. Some defendants may have multiple cases against them, each of which is treated as a separate arraignment matter. Misdemeanor cases seldom involve transport of the defendants because most are released after citation, while felony cases almost always involve arrest and incarceration. Nonetheless, on a projected annualized basis, this data projects out to a total of 11,540 required Arraignment hearings per year. Response to Grand Jury Finding 10: The Office oft he Sheriff" concurs with the finding "that these numbers reflect only the number ofc ases, and not the number of defendants appearing for a particular case. Some defendants may have multiple cases against them, each ofw hich is treated as a separate arraignment matter." Scott Miller, Sheriff-Coroner 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906 www.co.monterey.ea.us/sheriff (831) 755-3700

Examination of those Superior Court statistics against further Court data indicates that during the period of October 2013 through the end of December 2013, there were a total of only 18 actual criminal trials at the Salinas Courthouse - 10 of which were felony trials while 8 were misdemeanor cases. These trials and all the pre-trial hearings before the trials almost always mean daily transports back and forth, day after day, for many days during the actual trial. Response to Grand Jury Finding 11: As indicated in our response to F 10, the Office of the Sheriff concurs that the data does not provide an accurate number for "those Superior Court statistics." The number of Trials fluctuates each year, with over 700 inmates in the jail awaiting trial, or the disposition oft heir cases, this number cannot be counted on as being stable. The Office oft he Sheriff concurs with the statement: "These trials and all the pre-trial hearings before the trials almost always mean daily transports back and forth, day after day, for many days during the actual trial. "

Assuming that these statistics were to be typical year to year, and although they undoubtedly would vary month to month, this means that the number of transports, which would be needed, if there were a Sheriffs Natividad Jail Arraignment courtroom, is far smaller than at present by a significant reduction of prisoner transport trips. This is a ratio of 72 annual criminal trials to 11,540 annual Arraignment hearings. Thus, the potential reduction of the number and costs of such Sheri ff transports for arraignments is significant when viewed in this light. As noted above, there are still going to be some cases of need for transporting prisoners in case of appearances and hearings occurring after the initial arraignment has taken place. Response to Grand Jury Finding 12: The Office oft he Sheriffi s not prepared to make assumptions based on the numbers noted in the report since the Grand Jury acknowledged those numbers are not accurate. An arraignment court will reduce the number ofd efendants transported, but may not reduce the number of transportation trips.

County and/or State/Superior Court capital funds would likely be involved in the cost of planning and the actual construction of the proposed Arraignment Courtroom, but it would seem that amortization of any such courtroom construction costs over a twenty five year life, and the location of the new Arraignment courtroom, as an example, would still show a significant savings to the State, the Sheriffs office, the County and its taxpayers. There are also other long term financial implications to both the County and the Superior Scott Miller, Sheriff-Coroner 1414 Natividad Road, Salinas, CA 93906 www.co.monterey.ea.us/sheriff (831) 755-3700 Court because of the normal operating costs of Department 11 at the Natividad Jail; however, similar operating costs already exist for the present Department 11 courtroom. Any added operating costs to the Superior Courts are also offset by the Court being able to make available the use of the existing Department 11 courtroom at the Salinas Courthouse for other types of hearings and trials by the Courts. According to the Executive Offices of the Court, there is presently a serious shortage of courtrooms there, which would become even greater were all the present authorized vacancies ofj udges to be appointed by the Governor. Response to Grand Jury Finding 1 3: The Office oft he Sheriffd oes not believe there will be any financial savings as a result ofc ollocated courtroom. The benefits ofa nother courtroom for the Superior Court will result in expedited cases. An additional courtroom will require an additional bailiffd eputy at a cost of$ 150,175 per year. The increases in the total salary and benefit costs oft he service changes in this proposal are at least $750,000.

If the Grand Jury correctly understands the existing practices of the State of California (which effectively provides the funding for construction of all Courthouses), the State requires that the State own the land and the building for each of its courthouses. Therefore, the County and the Sheriff will need to verify the feasibility of this aspect and find a mutually acceptable approach to this factor, since the County currently owns the land around and under the proposed Jail courtroom. It is also possible that with special legislation introduced in the Legislature, the State might fully fund the construction of this special courtroom, as it already does for regular courthouses in other counties. This aspect of funding should be explored further with the Monterey County State Legislative delegation. Response to Grand Jury Finding 14: The Office of the Sheriff concurs with this finding that verification andf onding is needed.