18 SLO County inmates get out of jail free in emergency coronavirus move
Three days of marathon hearings in San Luis Obispo Superior Court resulted in the release of a total of 18 County Jail inmates on $0 bail in an emergency effort by the court to reduce local jail populations and prevent the spread of coronavirus.
That number, as of Wednesday morning, will continue to rise as people who meet the criteria for release enter the criminal justice system.
The hearings follow an order by the California Judicial Council, which oversees the state’s court system, to set bail at $0, ensuring the defendant’s early release but mandating that they continue to meet certain requirements and participate in their cases.
Of an original estimate of about 60 inmates the Sheriff’s Office identified were eligible for the zero bail amount, 33 cases eventually made it to court for an emergency hearing.
Those included a Paso Robles man prosecutors called the “head” of a Central Coast meth and heroin ring and a South County woman who allegedly stole $5 million from her employer while working as a bookkeeper.
Prosecutors contested the emergency bail for all 33 defendants who were in pre-trial detention, District Attorney Dan Dow said late Tuesday, but they did not file formal motions opposing the release of nine of those, as it was assumed the court would grant their release.
Of the 27 emergency bail cases heard in court between Monday and Wednesday, the judge agreed with the District Attorney’s Office in keeping bail in place for 10 defendants, Dow said. Four hearings were continued to a future date and one additional defendant — an Atascadero bookkeeper charged with embezzlement — was denied emergency bail in a hearing last week.
As of Wednesday, judges had granted $0 bail to nine county jail inmates in hearings argued in court.
Though the defense attorneys representing most of the inmates argued in court that their clients were the very same people the Judicial Council aimed to protect, most of the zero bail requests were met by fierce resistance by county prosecutors.
In contested cases, prosecutors convinced judges to use their discretion and consider some defendants’ past history in concluding whether they had any history of violence or failing to show for court hearings or drug treatment.
Though narcotics trafficking is not one of the crimes the Judicial Council ruled ineligible for the $0 bail — those include murder, robbery, making criminal threats, and 10 others — prosecutors argued in those cases that dealing drugs “is an inherently dangerous activity” that impacts public safety.
DA says emergency bail is ‘bad news’
As of Tuesday, no inmate or employee at the County Jail had tested positive for COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, though one inmate at California Men’s Colony — where inmates are serving sentences for felony convictions — tested positive Saturday.
Since the pandemic became apparent, attorneys for the accused have been sounding the alarms that an outbreak at either facility would spread rapidly, and that compassionate release for nonviolent defendants are necessary to “flatten the curve.”
But the historic measures have been largely opposed by law enforcement agencies and organizations, citing a risk to public safety.
On Monday, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff Ian Parkinson released a statement saying that although he’s obligated to enforce the new rule, the Sheriff’s Office “strongly disagrees” with the Judicial Council decision.
“I believe this rule has the potential to reduce the safety and security of not only our local communities and neighborhoods but all across the state,” Parkinson wrote.
In the same statement, Parkinson said the Sheriff’s Office has increased the number of deputies on patrol 75% over normal patrol levels since the order went into effect March 18.
San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow also released a statement Friday telling residents that the emergency bail order, while well-intended, “has the practical effect of allowing criminals to victimize our communities with impunity” and “robs our law enforcement of the ability to arrest and hold people” for crimes such as child abuse and endangerment, trafficking of narcotics, physical or financial abuse of an elder adult, and fraud and embezzlement.
“This emergency order is bad policy and bad news for the law-abiding people in our communities who depend on our law enforcement and court system for upholding the rule of law and public safety because it will certainly lead to more crime,” Dow wrote.
But Steve Rice, assistant managing attorney for SLO Defenders, the San Luis Obispo law firm that contracts public defender services to the county, said that officials are engaging in scare tactics and that prosecutors have means to protect alleged victims of crimes other than bail.
“The public should not buy into the fear-mongering with the false information that the SLO County Jail is letting out people charged with child abuse, elder abuse, abuse of dependent adults, and human trafficking for labor,” Rice wrote in an email Tuesday. “None of the cases that I have reviewed for release, of which the district attorney is opposing, involve any of those listed crimes.”
Rice said the Sheriff’s Office has done “a great job” in identifying inmates suffering from mental illness or homelessness and “setting up discharge plans to better ensure their safety and stability when they are released.”
But Rice said the District Attorney’s Office’s “blanket opposition to the mandated zero bail order violates the constitutional rights of the accused.”
He wrote that while the local DA’s Office opposes the $0 bail, it did not oppose the delay of certain constitutional rights when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also extended the time limits for a person’s right to a speedy preliminary hearing and right to a speedy trial.
“You cannot have it both ways,” Rice wrote. “Allowing overcrowded jails to continue in the manner they are, despite the emergency bail schedule, is dangerous to the inmates, the sheriff deputies, and court staff, the attorneys in court, and the rest of the community at large.”
‘Inmate ‘isn’t going anywhere’ if released, attorney says
In the emergency bail hearings, Assistant District Attorney Dobroth said judges are to presume the truth of the general allegations, including their threat of violence or risk of flight, when deciding whether a person should be released.
Most hearings went like this: Once the judge had read the DA’s Office opposition papers specific to a case, the judge issued a tentative ruling including any relevant case law. After the defendants were called, the judge explained the purpose of the hearing and both the prosecutor and the defense attorney argued why the Judicial Council ruling applies or doesn’t apply to the defendant’s case.
The judge then either granted or denied the request, or modified the defendant’s current bail amount. If granted $0 bail, the inmate was taken back to the jail to gather belongings and sign release paperwork.
On Monday and Tuesday, several San Luis Obispo Superior Court judges heard almost three dozen emergency bail hearings from inmates accused of a range of crimes from narcotics trafficking to probation violations.
One defendant who was granted release Monday was Ginger Mankins of Pismo Beach. A bookkeeper for two Arroyo Grande agricultural businesses, Mankins was being held in lieu of $330,000 bail after being charged with 15 felony counts of grand theft by embezzlement.
In another high-profile case, Rogelio Miranda was one of 13 people indicted by a county Grand Jury in early March for allegedly operating a heroin and methamphetamine ring linked to a Mexican source. He faces a maximum of 18 years in prison.
Miranda appeared in court Tuesday, when Chief Deputy District Attorney Lisa Muscari told Judge Dodie Harman that while possession of a controlled substance for sale wasn’t exempt from $0 bail, he has a risk of flight because he was arrested following a brief car chase. Moreover, Muscari said, Miranda supplied drugs to a dealer who lived near Paso Robles High School as part of the operation, and had a lengthy criminal history for selling drugs.
Muscari also argued that the community at large is a victim of the alleged crimes.
“He has shown time and time again that he is going to engage in (drug) sales,” she told Harman.
But his attorney, Patrick Fisher, argued to Harman that Miranda’s family lives locally and that his most recent conviction was in 2005.
Miranda was also released from custody for three days before prosecutors filed charges and he didn’t leave the county in that time.
“What did he do? He didn’t leave — he hired me,” Fisher told Harman. “He isn’t going anywhere.”
Harman, however, said that because Miranda was allegedly behind the wheel during the vehicle pursuit and found with more than 2.2 pounds of heroin, Miranda presents a flight risk. For those and other reasons related to his case, Harman recalculated his bail at $370,000.
In another case, Debbie Yraceburn, who is homeless, was in custody after being charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and possession of a switchblade knife, which she reportedly told officers was for her own protection.
Dobroth argued to Judge Baltodano that the use of methamphetamine is a “deadly action” that Yraceburn was encouraging, and that by her own admission, she planned to use her switchblade in self-defense while dealing drugs.
Her attorney, Pierre Blahnik, pointed out that Yraceburn has no criminal history of violence and was extremely cooperative with officers when she was arrested.
Granting her release, Baltodano warned Yraceburn that she must attend future hearings in her case if her attorney tells her to.
“I fully understand what you told me, Your Honor, and I am willing to do whatever you say I need to do,” she replied.
Baltodano cautioned once more that should Yraceburn be re-arrested for any reason, “your chances for release are basically slim.”
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include all inmate release information as of Wednesday, April 15, 2020.
This story was originally published April 15, 2020 at 5:00 AM.
