ACLU Reaches Landmark Settlement in L.A. County Jails Case
LOS ANGELES – Today, U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson approved an extraordinary settlement between people incarcerated in Los Angeles jails — represented by the ACLU National Prison Project and ACLU Foundation of Southern California — and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Robert Luna. The agreement makes permanent many remedial efforts in the L.A. County Jails’ Inmate Reception Center (IRC) thanks to litigation by the ACLU.
“This is a watershed moment for the ACLU’s jail and prison decarceration movement,” said Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “This is the first time in the country a jurisdiction that we or other advocates have sued agreed that the cornerstone to addressing abysmal jail conditions and overcrowding is to reduce the number of people coming to jail in the first place and to create alternatives to incarceration. A person cannot get well in a jail cell.”
The agreement includes a requirement that the county will create at least 1,925 new community beds as alternatives to jailing people with mental illness. Close to 1,700 of those new placements will be online within the next two years.
L.A. County also agreed to increase mental health staffing in the IRC. They will screen and prescribe medication for people while they are still in the IRC going through the intake process or within 24 hours of being moved out of the IRC elsewhere in the jail.
Numerous incarcerated people who had their medication discontinued upon arrest/intake reported to the ACLU and the court that they had suffered severe psychological distress. Studies have shown that more than 40% of jail suicides happen in the first seven days after being jailed, and a quarter of all suicides occur in the first three days.
“A crowded jail is a jail with all sorts of horrific problems,” said Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel at the ACLU SoCal. “The root cause of all of this is the county’s failure to bring the jail population down. The county supervisors simply have not funded their ‘care first, jails last’ mandate, and it’s time they begin. They’re committing to do that now, and we will be monitoring closely to see that they do.”
Rutherford v Luna now has six new permanent orders, imposing certain timelines in the IRC and standards for cleanliness and medical and mental health care. L.A. County is permanently prohibited from:
- Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC for more than 24 hours;
- Holding an incarcerated person on the IRC Clinic Front Bench, handcuffed, chained, or tethered to a chair or any other object, for more than four hours;
- Holding an incarcerated person in an IRC holding cell for more than 12 hours total, or holding more people in a holding cell than its rated capacity;
- Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC Clinic cage, when locked, for more than eight (8) hours total;
- Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC Clinic area, cage, or any cell in the IRC when that location is not in a clean and sanitary condition, with access to functioning toilets, potable drinking water, clean water to wash, and sufficient garbage receptacles;
- Holding an incarcerated person in the IRC clinic area, cage, or any cell in the IRC without providing ongoing access to adequate medical and mental health care, including but not limited to regular pill call.
If conditions in the IRC deteriorate again, and the county has not brought the promised beds on line, they will now answer to a federal judge. The county will have to provide quarterly reports to the court and to the ACLU on their progress in complying with the requirements of the stipulation. The ACLU will continue to monitor if the county is staying on track with these reforms and raise it with the court if they falter.
“In the IRC, people have had to wait without beds and with access to little food. At times in the past year, the IRC was full of trash and human waste. Hundreds of people waited in the IRC for five to seven days. People with severe mental illness or in states of detox were chained to chairs for up to 100 hours at a time,” said Melissa Camacho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU SoCal. “Until now, the county has not dealt with the underlying issue: overcrowding in the LA Jails that creates a bottleneck in the IRC.”
Read the full stipulation . Learn more about the Rutherford case here.
Prisoners' Rights
Rutherford v. Luna
Prisoners' Rights
Rutherford v. Luna
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.