APPENDIX II (Attachment #3)

M E M O R A N D U M

July 2, 2002

To: City Council

Bert McClintock, City Administrator

From: Bill L. DeForrest, Interim Police Chief

Subject: Jail Standards and Miscellaneous Information

On Wednesday, June 26, 2002 I had the opportunity to meet with Carol Knapel, National Institute of Corrections regarding the consulting services she is providing to the City of Springfield regarding their jail study issue.

I asked Ms. Knapel if any federal standards exist for the operation of a local jail. She informed me there are no federal standards for local jails. She said the American Correctional Association, which is an association of professional corrections practitioners has established standards but they are advisory only. As a consultant, she advises her clients to use the Association standards only if there are no state standards such as we have in Oregon. This should put to rest concern that our local jail may not meet federal standards.

She further advised me that for the past several years’ courts intervention in corrections has been declining. There are several reasons why this is fact.

Ms. Knapel referred me to a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Manual that includes a section entitled, “Corrections and the Constitution as the Century Ends.” The section is written by William C. Collins, who, according to DOJ/NIC is generally recognized as one of the country’s most experienced and knowledgeable attorneys in the field of correctional law.

Mr. Collins writes, “For the last several years, court intervention in corrections has been shrinking. It appears this trend will continue. The conservative Supreme Court, which has been checking the growth of inmate rights and in some cases reducing those rights for the better part of 20 years, reemphasized that courts should take a limited role in corrections cases in a 1996 decision, Lewis v. Case, 116 S.Ct (1966). In 1996 Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) which is also intended to limit the power of the federal court in corrections cases”.

Mr. Collins further writes, “Prison Litigation Reform Act seeks to limit powers of courts. In the Spring of 1996, Congress acted in dramatic fashion to restrict the power of the federal courts over state and local corrections agencies in major conditions cases and

to make it more difficult for inmates to file suits under section 1983 (see discussion below). Highlights of the Prison Litigation Reform Act follow.

• Court injunctions in virtually all types of “inmate rights” cases, and certainly in large confinement cases, will presumptively end after two years upon request of the defendants unless it can be shown constitutional violations continue. This provision includes consent decrees. This is intended to end court orders that seem to run forever and where haggling between the parties and the court continues over relatively minor items that may not in and of themselves, be of constitutional importance.

• Sharp limitations are placed on the powers of Special Masters and on the fees they can be paid. PLRA also requires that a Master’s fee be paid by the court appointing the Master, not by the defendants, as has been the custom.

• Limitations are placed on circumstances under which inmates’ lawyers may be paid attorneys fees and on the amount of fees that can be paid. Fee awards based on hourly rates of $250 to $300 per hour should become a thing of the past.

• The practice of completely waiving court-filing fees for indigent inmates has been changed. While payment of fees may be postponed, inmates with almost any money on the institution books are required to pay the full amount of the fee over time and the jail is permitted to send money to the court as it may appear in the inmate’s trust account. Fee waivers now, in essence, are more like loans than gifts.

• Inmates are required to exhaust any administrative remedies available to them prior to filing a section 1983 claim in federal court. Previously such a requirement could be imposed only if an institution grievance process was certified by either a jurisdiction’s local federal court or by the U.S. Justice Department as meeting standards for grievance procedures set under the Civil Right of Institutionalized Persons Act.

• Inmates who have had three previous cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim for relief are barred from filing additional section `1983 action unless they claim they are in immanent danger of bodily harm.”

According to Mr. Collins, when inmates do file a lawsuit they generally file in federal court under title 42, of the United States Code, section 1983. This law reads as follows:

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, or of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subject, any citizen of the United States or other person with the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Failure to train or supervise is the most likely cause of action for these lawsuits. If a lawsuit is filed and the plaintiff shows a violation of his/her constitutional rights damages may be of three types: Nominal damages are a token amount (such as 1$) where a plaintiff shows a violation of his/her rights but can show no damages. Compensatory damages are intended to make the plaintiff whole again and include out-of-pocket expenses, medical costs and pain and suffering. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter others from similar conduct. Punitive damages historically are reserved for the most egregious conduct by defendants in cases where “deliberate indifference” is a part of the constitutional violation.

The Junction City Police Department is committed to providing its employees with the training and supervision they need in jail operations. As mentioned in the Jail Issues paper, the department has a comprehensive standard operating procedure based upon state standards to provide direction to its employees. The purpose of this training and supervision is to protect the constitutional rights of inmates. I believe the likelihood of an inmate filing a lawsuit is minimal. Further, because of the manner in which the jail is operated the likelihood of a successful lawsuit being successful is even less.

I hope this additional information will assist the Council with making the decision regarding the Junction City local corrections facility.

I am available for questions you or the Council may have about this new information.