SEVEN POINT JAIL ALTERNATIVE PLAN

Editorial: 7 Point Jail Alternative Plan
By: Douglas A.Garner, Attorney
Zerbe, Garner, Miller, and Blondell

August 11, 2011


Re: Alternatives to Jail Expansion

Previously, Alan Miller and I questioned the need to add 224 beds to the Dearborn County jail. The jail project is projected to cost between $12 and $14 million. When the jail reaches capacity, annual staffing and prisoner costs are projected to be $1.34 million. Alternatives to expanding the jail need to be tried first. The following seven point plan, if implemented, would greatly reduce or eliminate the need for a larger jail:

• Direct funding of Community Corrections.
• Release non-violent offenders on their own recognizance or on reasonable surety bonds, unless they have a previously demonstrated history of not appearing in court.
• Revise the bond schedule.
• Train law enforcement to issue citations in misdemeanor cases when possible.
• The Prosecutor’s Office should refrain from filing new charges on Friday and requesting arrest warrants on Friday afternoon.
• Build a separate work release center in conjunction with an expanded sheriff’s office, if needed.
• Apply for state reimbursement for public defender costs.


1. Direct funding of Community Corrections.

Currently Community Corrections, which includes the house arrest, work release and road crew programs, receives its operating funding from program fees and grants. Before an individual can be placed on house arrest, they must pay $150.00. As a result, many persons who could otherwise be on house arrest remain in the jail. If the county directly funded Community Corrections, judges could send persons directly to house arrest immediately following their first appearance in court regardless of their ability to pay. It costs $30 to $45 per day to house one prisoner in jail. House arrest costs approximately $10 per day. Direct funding of Community Corrections would save the county money and reduce the number of people in the jail.

2. Release non-violent offenders on their own recognizance or on reasonable surety bonds, unless they have a previously demonstrated history of not appearing in court.

The purpose of bond under Indiana law is to ensure that a person charged with a crime will appear in court. Indiana law also provides judges can consider the risk to the community when setting bonds. Prepayment of fines and court costs and general ease of court administration are not lawful considerations when setting bonds. Non-violent offenders who have not previously failed to appear in court should not be held in jail pretrial. If our judges released those persons on their own recognizance, lower surety bonds or placed them on house arrest pending trial, the jail overcrowding problem would be significantly lessened.

A major problem with the existing jail is the overcrowding of the holding area. An unreasonable number of people are being held in the holding cells, particularly on the weekends. There is no doubt this is a significant problem, however, it is caused more by policies of local law enforcement, judges, and the prosecutor, than it is by an actual shortage of space. The following three points, if adopted, would greatly reduce the overcrowding of the holding area and the jail population overall:

3. Revise the bond schedule.

Certain persons arrested are eligible to bond out before appearing in court pursuant to a bond schedule developed by the judges of Dearborn County. A more reasonable schedule allowing non-violent offenders, particularly those with local ties, to be released on their own recognizance or on minimal surety bonds would reduce the overcrowding of the holding cells on the weekends.

4. Train law enforcement to issue citations in misdemeanor cases when possible.

Indiana law allows for police officers to issue citations in misdemeanor cases. A citation requires the person to appear in court at a future date. Many jurisdictions have trained law enforcement to issue citations in non-violent misdemeanor cases rather than burden their jails and holding facilities with persons accused of minor offenses. Local law enforcement typically does not use this alternative. As a result, misdemeanor offenders overcrowd the holding area waiting to be bonded out or for the court to set a bond.

5. The Prosecutor’s Office should refrain from filing new charges on Friday and requesting arrest warrants on Friday afternoon.

It has been a long standing practice in this county for the Prosecutor’s Office to file charges on Friday resulting in arrest warrants on Friday afternoon. Those arrest warrants are often served Friday afternoon or Friday evening resulting in the accused persons being held in the jail through the weekend. This is a contributing factor to the overcrowding of the holding cells.

6. Build a separate work release center in conjunction with an expanded sheriff’s office, if needed.

The RQAW report (county funded jail study) expressed concerns about the mixing of the work release population with the general jail population. Work release allows people to be incarcerated in the evening and work during the day. This creates a security problem, as the work release prisoners can smuggle contraband into the facility. If new space is needed for the sheriff’s department, a work release facility could be built in conjunction with that new office space to allow the separation of work release prisoners from general population, further reducing the jail overcrowding. A work release center would require less security than the jail, and therefore be less expensive to build. This solution would be significantly less expensive than the current proposal.

7. Apply for state reimbursement for public defender costs.

Every county in Indiana is eligible for up to 40 percent reimbursement of its public defender costs. Currently Dearborn County does not receive any reimbursement from the state for those costs. In order to receive state reimbursement, counties must comply with certain requirements of the Indiana Public Defender Commission. These criteria would improve the quality of public defender representation. The RQAW study found the average jail stay in Dearborn County was 70-100 percent longer than the average stay for other jails studied by RQAW. Part of the reason for the lengthy jail stays is inadequate representation by some public defenders. In far too many cases inmates are brought to the courthouse for hearings after 30, 60 or even 90 days having never met their public defender. Better representation by the county public defenders would result in shorter jail stays and a reduced jail population.

There are systemic problems in the Dearborn County criminal justice system. Doubling the size of the jail is an expensive band aid. Without changes to the system, the proposed jail addition will fill up quickly. Our elected officials have a responsibility to make changes to the system before spending our money on an unneeded jail.

Very truly yours,

Douglas A. Garner