What’s Going On With the San Diego Sheriff’s? No Cooperation With Oversight Board and Un-Audited Millions From Prisoners’ Welfare Fund

What is going on with the San Diego Sheriff’s Department these days?

First of all,  County Sheriff Kelly Martinez is being accused of slowing down and even ignoring data requests from the people who were hired to research why so many people die in local jails. This slow-down has cost San Diego taxpayers nearly $20 million in legal settlements this year alone. This allegation is but the latest dispute between the region’s largest law enforcement agency and the civilian office charged with monitoring its practices.

Second — and to a lesser degree –, questions are being raised about the millions of dollars generated by a prisoners’ welfare fund, specifically the Sheriff’s commissary that serves the 3,800 or so people locked up in San Diego County jails. The millions generated are supposed to pay for the benefit, education and welfare of people in custody, but millions from the welfare fund are used to pay sheriff’s employees’ salaries and benefits, to pay for office supplies, equipment, cleaning, food, postage and other services that might normally be considered routine jail operational expenses, according to the San Diego UT.

San Diego Jail Deaths and the Researchers Hired to Figure Out Why

As observers of our metropolis know, San Diego County jails have the highest number of unexplained deaths and also the highest number of accidental deaths compared to every other California county, not to mention the high risk of suicide among jail inmates.

State auditors found 185 people have died in custody between 2006 and 2020 in San Diego County jails. Since 2016, San Diego County taxpayers have paid more than $42 million to settle jail-related claims or lawsuits. The largest annual settlement amount came last year. Records obtained by CBS 8 show $17.15 million was awarded to those who were injured or died while in San Diego Sheriff’s custody.

CBS8 reports that a letter that was supposed to be discussed by the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board (CLERB) this week says the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office has been slow to provide the data it needs to form a prevention plan. The two-page letter raises concerns to Sheriff Kelly Martinez about the “frustrating” attempt to obtain data.

The U-T reports:

The two-page correspondence from … CLERB pleads with Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez to “immediately cooperate” with researchers from the Mountain-Whisper-Light consulting group and turn over the information they need to finish their study.

CLERB Chair MaryAnne Pintar said the board hired the company in May 2022 to provide data-driven recommendations aimed at reducing jail deaths, and the firm promptly contacted the Sheriff’s Office for help obtaining key records and data.

But Sheriff’s Office staff told the researchers to submit a request under the California Public Records Act. The researchers filed formal requests for records, but the sheriff withheld many of the documents under various exemptions in the state law.

“What has followed has been a protracted and frustrating attempt to acquire the needed data from the Sheriff’s Office, which to date has been largely unsuccessful,” Pintar wrote to Martinez.

“Despite numerous (California Public Records Act) requests submitted by TMWL, the data has not been fully provided, with multiple requests denied or delayed,” she added. “Many of the reasons documents were denied are spurious, or reflect the Sheriff’s Office asserting CPRA exemptions it could choose to waive.”

The lack of cooperation has not only delayed the $118,000 study, it has also forced CLERB to spend more than $14,000 on a lawyer to defend the public-records requests, Pintar said.

CBS8 confirms this:

CLERB Chair MaryAnne Pintar, who signed the letter, detailed the “frustrating battle” to obtain needed data and says the board “has largely been unsuccessful.” She says the contractor hired to conduct the study on behalf of CLERB has had multiple requests denied, delayed or provided with incomplete data. The Sheriff’s withheld many of the documents and cited a variety of exemptions from state law.

CLERB then sought counsel after multiple attempts at requesting Sheriff’s cooperation, which racked up a $14,000 bill. Pintar also states in the letter under section 340.15 of the County Administrative Code, the Sheriff’s staff is supposed to cooperate with CLERB as the group conducts its duties.

But the Sheriff’s Office has a different interpretation of the code. “The study does not fall within CLERB’s jurisdiction, duties, and responsibilities,” [Media Relations Director Kimberly] King said. “San Diego County Administrative Code section 340.15 does not apply to CLERB’s requests for data to perform the study.  Still, our office has been working with CLERB and their contractor to provide legally appropriate information.”

In a statement to CBS 8, a Sheriff’s spokesperson said CLERB is requesting data containing “confidential, legally protected information.”

The Sheriff’s also pointed to one denied request for 12 years worth of data. “It’s certainly more than data on inmates,” King said. CBS8:

The U-T:

CLERB Executive Officer Brett Kalina said the consultants were willing to sign a nondisclosure agreement to protect the confidentiality of any of the records but the Sheriff’s Office “claimed it would not be needed.”

“We would have gladly cooperated with the Sheriff’s Office and signed contracts that safeguarded the information as we originally discussed,” Kalina told The San Diego Union-Tribune. Kalina pointed out that CLERB, which relies on Sheriff’s Office records to conduct its own reviews of in-custody deaths, already follows strict confidentiality rules.

And other county agencies provided information to the researchers without requiring a public-records request, he said. “The information provided by those agencies is no less sensitive than the information requested from SDSO,” Kalina said.

One exemption the Sheriff’s Office has cited frequently in its responses to the consultants’ requests prohibits the release of “criminal offender record information.” But Kalina said the law makes an exception for public agencies and research institutions whose work focuses on improving the criminal justice system.

Prisoners’ Welfare Fund

Back to a lesser issue, what’s happening to the millions generated by the fund set up to benefit prisoners? In its report, the U-T says:

… there’s no easy way to tell how much revenue the Incarcerated Persons’ Welfare Fund raises each year or where the proceeds are directed. And the finances of the jail-based shopping outlet have not been formally audited in at least eight years.

The Sheriff’s Office does not generally disclose spending details for the welfare fund, which is the pool of income derived from profits the Sheriff’s Office receives from commissary sales.

Instead, the region’s largest law enforcement agency limits the information in its published reports to broad spending categories — education, operations and support, free indigent goods, entertainment and recreation, equipment and maintenance.

When pressed for details by The San Diego Union-Tribune over several months, the department released financial data showing that the fund had more than $11 million in the bank as of June 30.

The documents also show that millions of dollars from the welfare fund are used to pay sheriff’s employees’ salaries and benefits. Millions more pay for office supplies, equipment, cleaning, food, postage and other services that might normally be considered routine jail operational expenses.

.