18. Are You Getting Less Than What You Pay For?

Recommendations 3

• R1

  Page 269
  Reduce transportation costs
• R3

  Page 269
  Improve efficiencies
• R4

  Page 269
  Avoid prisoner discomfort in being shackled and spending long periods in court holding cells.3 The first California conversion to video arraignments occurred at the San Diego Municipal Court in 1983.4 During the next ten years, 14 more California courts converted to video arraignments.5 Every court day 1,5006 inmates are bused for arraignment and court appearances to 29 criminal courthouses in Los Angeles County (County).7 With few exceptions, transporting inmates is the job of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff).8 Planning and executing the daily busing schedule is a complex and challenging undertaking. In-custody arraignments must be held within 48 hours from the time of arrest .9 The Sheriff successfully ran a video arraignment program for about 12 years until 2002. Since that time several official bodies encouraged the stakeholders10 to restart a videoconferencing 1 Megan Cotter (http://govtech.com/authors/98565884.htm), 11/30/95 2 With Videoconferencing, Liberty and Justice For All, https://vsee.com/blog/author/anne, 2010 3 CA Penal Code §977.2 4 Justice in the Balance, Commission on the Future of the California Courts, p. 107, 12/21/93 5 Judicial Council of California, Report to the Legislature on Videoconferencing at 14 courts, December 1991, p1 6 Sheriff’s Courtline Tour 3/13/17 7 Sheriff’s Court Services Division, 2/23/17 8 Ibid 9 County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, Wikipedia 10 The Superior Court (Court), DA (District Attorney), PD (Public Defender), APD (Alternate Public Defender), Sheriff (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), and LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 253 program with more documentation of costs and benefits and fiscal viability.11, 12 A decade later a video arraignment program was started as a pilot program, but aborted after one year when the participants decided that the existing process was not broken, and changing the process might force staff to work overtime. The Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) was concerned by the large number of mentally ill inmates who are particularly unsuited to the busing program for court appearances. About a third of the County’s inmates are mentally ill, and busing in many cases aggravates their condition. Many programs and significant staffing resources are being invested in addressing mental health problems and busing has proved to be counter-therapeutic.13 During its investigation, the CGJ also evaluated a second alternative to transporting inmates to court by locating a court within or adjacent to a detention facility. This alternative offers advantages similar to videoconferencing, but all parties would be present at the same location and all relevant documents would be executed in an expeditious and timely manner. It also improves the flexibility of the court to accommodate ad hoc changes in the court schedule. II BACKGROUND Videoconferencing and Law Enforcement An early use of audio video technology in the criminal justice system was utilized in 1972, with the use of video phones for bail hearings in the State of Illinois. An early use in California occurred in San Diego in 1983, the same year the California Legislature changed the California Penal Code to permit video arraignments for felony and misdemeanor arraignments.14 By 1995, there were 27 states using or with the ability to use videoconferencing for criminal justice purposes after federal and state courts’ decisions settled the use of videoconferencing for arraignments.15 A review of the literature about savings derived from videoconferencing reveals little operational information or useful metrics. For example, in response to a survey by the National Center of State Courts, 80% of the respondents indicated that videoconferencing helps to administer justice, and mentioned staff and fuel savings as other videoconferencing benefits. Pennsylvania courts reported they have saved $32 million since videoconferencing was introduced.16 The most frequent uses were found to be initial proceedings and criminal arraignments. An in-depth study of video arraignments was undertaken in Pennsylvania in 2004.17 Cost surveys of police, district attorneys and court administrators found that the average time to arraign a detainee using videoconferencing was 1.8 hours compared to 6.3 hours for face-to-face 11 Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission, Video Arraignment And Its Potential For Use In The County Criminal Justice System, November 2004 12 Meeting with Mental Health Senior Staff and Sheriff Technical Liaison 3/8/17 14 California Penal Code §977 15 Los Angeles County Citizens’ Economy and Efficiency Commission, Video Arraignment And Its Potential For Use In The County Criminal Justice System, November 2004 16 Videoconferencing Survey, 2011, National Council of State Courts, September 2010 17 An Evaluation of Video Preliminary Arraignment Systems in Pennsylvania, Karen Shastri, Fall 2004 254 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT arraignments. The cost of installing the system was recovered in less than five months through savings from busing and operations. Similarly, video preliminary hearings took less than half as long as face-to-face hearings. The study reiterated that videoconferencing is as much about cost avoidance as it is about cost reductions. Streamlining the process may not reduce labor expenses but allows staff to perform other functions instead of processing arraignments. Improved safety generally does not show up in budgets. In a note to changing practices, the study found that district attorneys who had been in office for a long time still favored face-to-face arraignments instead of using videoconferencing. Similar to Pennsylvania’s videoconferencing experience, video technology is widely accepted in New Jersey and Ohio for law and justice purposes. Sixteen years ago, New Jersey claimed to have one of the largest videoconferencing networks in the nation with 29 remote sites.18 The Ohio Supreme Court reported 82 courts using video arraignment systems, and an Ohio regional detention facility reports a hookup with 20 courts for video arraignments to improve public and inmate safety and lower transportation costs. A 2014 report, “Video Remote Technology in California Courts-Survey and Findings,” noted that video technology use varied greatly among the most populous California counties, ranging from 12.3% of the Los Angeles County bench20 using video remote technology compared to 43.2% of the Alameda County bench.21 Managing The Sheriff’s Inmate Transportation Program The Sheriff’s Court Services Division includes the Transportation Bureau which spends $63 million annually for the local busing program.22 To manage the program, the Bureau has a fleet of 118 vehicles, including 87 buses and a variety of vans and sedans. Buses require large and secure areas, including sally ports23 with truck bays to securely load and unload inmates. Transfer areas within detention centers are also required to gather, pat down and segregate inmates as part of the massive daily movement of inmates to court holding cells where they await their court hearing or return bus. These activities require large spaces which are expensive to construct and maintain to meet safety and security standards.24 Buses are costly because they must be specially outfitted with separate seating and cage areas to maintain a secure environment for deputies and inmates alike during transport. In 2016 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved the purchase of 6 Sheriff’s buses at cost of $3.7 million.25 Courts are normally secured with the presence of bailiffs, but occasionally inmate outbursts occur. Not to be overlooked is the need for special safety measures prior to and during bus trips. Courts Celebrate 10 years of Video Technology, Trial Court Administrator’s Office , New Jersey, Bulletin 19 Video Court Appearances/Video Arraignments, October 2016, www.ccnoregionaljail.org 20 “Bench” includes judges, commissioners, and referees but not vacancies 21 Video Remote Technology in California Courts-Survey and Findings, Judicial Council of California, 2014 22 Auditor-Controller, Email 1/29/17 23A sally port is a secure, controlled entryway to a fortification or prison 24 Sheriff’s Administrative Services Division, Phone Call 4/7/17 25 Board of Supervisors Meeting, 9/13/2016 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 255