Prisoner Transportation : The Devil is in the Details

In considering videoconferencing, the stakeholders only focused on costs. In addressing the costs/benefit question of videoconferencing, the stakeholder representatives on the PEMC gave only fleeting attention to the issues of safety, cost avoidance, and inmate condition. The PEMC ignored the legacy of prior and ongoing videoconferencing efforts in the County. Clearly the stakeholders were unable to come to an agreement about how to implement an arraignment program, including the oversight to calculate the payback periods for such an investment. In 2009 the CCJCC looked into the possibility of hiring a consulting firm and issued a Request for Proposal but the request failed to attract any bids.

Busing is expensive The estimated annual inmate transportation cost for 2016-2017 in the County is estimated to be $63 million. This cost estimate reflects labor, equipment (buses, vans), maintenance, repair, and fuel. The average cost to transport inmates is $89/trip or $29/mile. The estimated annual cost for one bus to move inmates from detention facilities to and from local courts is $1.6 million annually. The average number of inmates transported to local courts is 723,000 annually. The costs for transportation equipment and maintenance will continue to rise while the purchase cost of video systems will remain constant or decrease with relatively stable maintenance. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 263

Busing is labor intensive, affecting costs The Sheriff’s Transportation Bureau has a staff of 288 people that manages inmate transportation from local holding and county detention facilities to courts in Los Angeles County. It is part of the Court Services Division with a staff of 2,032 and a budget of $306 million.

Busing is inefficient, affecting costs

Scheduling court appearances affects operating costs It takes a day to prepare and deliver inmates to court for a court hearing using expensive equipment and significant manpower, whereas a video arraignment would only take an hour to arrange at any time of the day using regular custody staff.

The Sheriff’s data collection and data management systems are substandard for the size and complexity of the organization. A number of times the CGJ requested standard operations reports that had to be created manually. These “one-of” reports take too much time and reflect a substandard data management system.

Busing of inmates invites violence not seen in secure detention and courthouse settings Holding cell incidents increased by 58% and courtroom incidents increased by 72% during the past five years. 8. “Use of Force” action is extremely rare but may be necessary if an inmate refuses to leave a cell. Occasionally, the action is preempted by using videoconferencing to conduct a court hearing. 9. “Keep-Aways” are bused with other inmates but segregated before, during transport and in court holding cells. A Sheriff’s survey conducted in two different months showed that 29% and 38% of inmates required special handling, including gang members, sexual orientation, high security inmates, mentally ill inmates, and violent inmates. This suggests that about one-third of the inmates may be problematic during transport. 10. “Medical No-Go’s” and physically handicapped inmates are bused to court. During a previous attempt to test the viability of video arraignments, “Medical No-Go’s” were identified as primary candidates for video arraignments. Ironically, “Medical No-Go” patients were one of the first categories of inmates to be deleted from the 2010-2011 pilot 264 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT project. Inmates are transported to court regardless of their physical or mental condition. Medical “No-Go’s” are transported to court by ambulance with the assistance of two emergency medical technicians. The inmate, on a gurney with medical assistants, is kept in the secure inmate holding area, for minutes or hours, awaiting the court appearance. After completion of the court appearance, the inmate is returned to the loading area for the return trip to the hospital or detention facility.

Busing exacerbates the condition of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems If mentally ill inmates are released by the court, they must return to their detention facility in order to be evaluated by mental health professionals before they can be released. Videoconferencing would eliminate that problem if the inmate had remained at the original detention facility. The number of inmates diagnosed with mental health problems is significant. In discussions with mental health professionals and a senior Sheriff’s official, the estimate is about 33% of the inmate population is diagnosed as mentally ill. Mental health professionals have used videoconferencing for telepsychiatric evaluations and consultations.

Busing contributes to traffic congestion The fleet of 118 Sheriff’s buses and vehicles exacerbates Los Angeles traffic congestion, which has the worst traffic congestion of any major metropolitan area in the world.

Busing contributes to air pollution The fleet of 118 vehicles includes 87 buses which use diesel fuel. Although Sheriff’s buses are equipped with emission control devices to mitigate the effect of diesel exhaust, the effects have not been entirely eliminated. Diesel fumes and particulates have been identified as the primary source of nitrogen oxide emissions in Southern California and are a main contributor to air pollution in the County. According to the SCAQMD, air pollution affects our respiratory and cardiovascular health. It is reported that the Los Angeles County area has the worst air pollution condition in the nation.

The Sheriff transports inmates to court without evidence of a completed case filing On many occasions, inmates are bused to court for arraignment with the expectation that charges will be filed by the DA or City Attorney before the 48-hour deadline. In 2016, a Sheriff survey reported that 18% of inmates who had been arrested by LAPD were bused to court for arraignment and were released due to insufficient information to prosecute. 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 265

LAPD’s Inadequate video conferencing facilities

LAPD requires a long time to complete discoveries in narcotics cases In 2011 the LAPD declined to join a video arraignment program because the time for completing discoveries for narcotics cases was longer than the stakeholders could agree go. As a large arresting agency potentially contributing the largest number of cases, it caused the project to be aborted.

A large percentage of LAPD arrestees have been transported to court without a completed case filing.

Many cases are filed during the day of court appearance Many cases are filed early each court day, causing a slow morning calendar and crowded afternoon calendar. During several visits to Dept. 30, the CGJ noticed that few cases were disposed of before noon. On one day, 6 cases were disposed by 10:10 am; by 11:30 am the number increased to 17, while the day’s calendar showed a schedule of 108 cases. In the meantime, attorneys were lined up in front of the Court Clerk with completed filings for that day’s calendar. The DA noted that the paperwork for many cases was completed between 8:00 am and 2:00 pm on the day of appearance.

Nationwide, law and justice stakeholders report favorable results from videoconferencing A wide range of favorable reports by the Judicial Council and The Council of State Courts, and numerous articles, describe a range of legal procedures that warrant video-conferencing, principle among them being arraignments and preliminary hearings. Arraignments were identified as the most favored application for videoconferencing in the 1992 Los Angeles County Strategic Videoconferencing Plan. Another application among the top five options for videoconferencing was a “defendant/defender” application which was implemented by the Public Defender program.

In September of 2009, at a meeting of the CCJCC, the PD reiterated its longtime support to implement video arraignments. The PD is already actively using video visitation and videoconferencing for inmates.

Stakeholder reticence is an impediment in changing practices and using new technology A lack of stakeholder commitment has been a problem for establishing and sustaining a video arraignment program, as evidenced in the PEMC pilot program conducted in 2010 as part of a state-wide initiative to test video arraignments. The most recent effort by stakeholders 266 2016-2017 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT concluded that the system “was not broken” and recommended continuing the antiquated and expensive process of transporting inmates to courts.

Locating a court adjacent to or inside a detention facility With few exceptions, detention facilities and courthouses are in locations remote from one another. It requires extended trips and security measures to transport inmates to court for a hearing that is often short and perfunctory. Co-locating the court and jail captures the advantage of videoconferencing, but makes the administrative process even more efficient and gives more flexibility in scheduling appearances. In 2009, Orange County created an in-custody arraignment court inside its main county jail complex that holds 1,400 male inmates and 400 female inmates.69 This arrangement offers the advantages of videoconferencing, but adds the flexibility for the court to multitask on different hearings simultaneously. V