|
Executive Director's
Report - Volume 51, Number 2 - 2007
Following up on one of ACCA's oldest complaints from its members.
One of the first complaints I heard from county officials shortly after being hired by the Association of County Commissions of Alabama in June 1972 was about state prisoners being housed in county jails for long periods after sentencing. These complaints have continued throughout my tenure.
Alabama law, Section 14-3-30(a), Code of Alabama 1975, basically requires the Alabama Department of Corrections to take custody of a state-sentenced inmate immediately upon receipt of an inmate’s transcript. For a host of reasons, the DOC has at times been unwilling or unable to receive state prisoners as required by law. Through the years, more than 2,000 state inmates have been at times backed up in county jails for periods longer than the law allows. This backup of state prisoners has caused Alabama’s counties to incur millions of dollars in expenses that should have been borne by the state.
In 1991, after years of frustration, the ACCA Board of Directors agreed to file and fund a lawsuit against the DOC in an effort to force it to comply with the law. The suit was filed in Barbour County on behalf of most counties and sheriffs in the state. The case was eventually moved to Montgomery Circuit Court, where it is still pending. The case is now before its second Circuit Court Judge (the original judge retired). Both judges handed down numerous orders in the case all aimed at getting DOC to accept state prisoners as required by law.
In 1998, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which, among other things, required the DOC to accept all state prisoners into state correctional facilities within 30 days of receiving their transcripts. The DOC complied with the agreement for a period, but eventually fell out of compliance. The plaintiffs eventually petitioned the court to enter further orders and sanctions against the department, many of which were granted by order in December 2002.
The DOC subsequently filed an appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2004 affirmed most aspects of the December 2002 order, but most importantly that which required the DOC to accept custody of a certain number of state inmates from the counties each week until all state inmates in county jails were removed and thereafter accept all state inmates within 30 days of receiving their transcripts.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s opinion, the DOC complied for a while, but eventually the number of state inmates in county jails for periods longer than 30 days rose into the hundreds. On May 11, 2006, the Circuit Court issued an order containing several very important provisions, the most significant of which are listed below and identified as paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, as they appeared in the order.
1. The Alabama Department of Corrections and Richard Allen, as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, are hereby held in contempt of the Orders of Sept. 9, 1998 and Dec. 12, 2002. Said parties are ordered to purge themselves of contempt immediately.
2. Beginning immediately, the DOC shall accept 75 state-ready inmates per week. In addition, the Class of Counties and Sheriffs shall be allowed to send up to 200 additional state-ready inmates per week to the Department of Corrections Receiving Centers at Kilby and Tutwiler. The Plaintiff Class shall not, however, send more than 70 state-ready inmates per day and must provide twenty-four hours’ notice of the number of inmates sent from each county to each receiving center. This additional number does not include the inmates required to be received by the DOC within three days pursuant to Ala. Code § 14-3-30(b). The determination of which counties will send these state-ready inmates each week shall be decided among the Plaintiff Class of Counties and Sheriffs as represented by its Class Counsel.
5. Beginning on Oct. 1, 2006, the sheriffs of this State shall deliver any and all state inmates sentenced to the custody of the DOC to the appropriate Department of Corrections Receiving Center on the thirtieth (30th) day after the DOC has received a transcript or other proper notice, whether by mail, facsimile or electronic means. The only exceptions are inmates qualifying for earlier transfer pursuant to Ala. Code § 14-3-30(b) or if an order is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction stating the contrary. If the thirtieth (30th) day falls on a weekend or a holiday, the inmate shall be delivered on the business day prior to the thirtieth (30th) day.
Paragraph 1 simply stated the obvious and that was that the DOC and its Commissioner were in contempt of previous orders of the court, and that they were to immediately purge themselves of such. This provision was indisputable.
It was determined from testimony that at certain times the DOC had received as many as 275 inmates per week. The court recognized that this rate of intake would likely result in the number of state inmates being housed in county jails for periods longer than 30 days to remain at or about zero.
Paragraph 2 set up a procedure aimed at assuring that the 275 intake number would be maintained. It basically lets the plaintiffs choose which of 200 inmates would be sent to the DOC weekly. A procedure was devised and managed by the Webb and Eley law firm through which 200 inmates from throughout the state were identified and transferred to the DOC each week. This procedure was utilized until the number of state inmates in county jails for longer than 30 days was at or about zero.
Paragraph 5, in the final analysis, may be the most important. It essentially orders all sheriffs to, “deliver any and all state inmates” to the appropriate DOC facility on the 30th day after DOC has received their transcripts. It appears that the directive by the court is not optional on the part of the sheriffs.
The DOC subsequently filed another appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the May 11, 2006, order. The appeal was based on constitutional issues relating to jurisdiction and justiciability. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the DOC and affirmed the Circuit Court order.
The above summary by no means describes all the activity that has gone on in and out of court with regard to this litigation during the past 16 years. Hundreds of documents have been filed by both parties. Numerous motions and counter motions have been entered. Numerous hearings have been held.
The obvious question at this point is, “What is the status of the matter now?” The lawsuit has not been dismissed or settled. It is still an ongoing, though inactive, lawsuit. The lawsuit may be reactivated by proper motion of the parties. We do know that we have two opinions of the Alabama Supreme Court that have held at least the following:
1. The DOC must remove all state inmates from county jails within 30 days of receipt of their transcripts.
2. The Commissioner of Corrections can be held in contempt if the DOC fails to accept state inmates as required by law and orders of the Circuit Court.
3. The DOC is required to accept from county jails at least 275 state inmates per week, and the class of counties and sheriffs may, under certain circumstances, designate up to 200 of that number.
4. Sheriffs are required to deliver state inmates to the DOC on the 30th day after the DOC receives their transcripts.
This litigation has from the beginning been handled by the Montgomery law firm of Webb and Eley. It has for the most part been managed by attorney Ken Webb. I cannot say enough good things about the efforts put forth by Ken and others with the firm. The lawsuit has taken many twists and turns through the years and it became, at times, very contentious. Ken and his associates have always responded appropriately and professionally.
It is appropriate to acknowledge here that the DOC has enormous problems. It has an ever-increasing prisoner population, its facilities are old and run down, and the legislature has not provided adequate funding for many years. But, these well-known problems do not relieve the DOC of its responsibility to comply with the laws of the state and should not be used as excuses to saddle counties with the expenses of housing state inmates.
It is also appropriate to acknowledge the accomplishments of the DOC under the leadership of current Commissioner, Richard Allen. Mr. Allen has brought on enormous improvements in the DOC and for the past year has been able to keep the number of state inmates in county jails more than 30 days at or near zero. He is to be commended for his work.
Hopefully this lawsuit will continue in its current status for many years – “inactive.”
|
