Superior Court in legal battle with Stanislaus County over bailiffs

Stanislaus Superior Court and Stanislaus County and its Sheriff’s Department are in a legal battle over funding for court security.

County officials say a state fund established for court security hasn’t provided adequate funding since 2014 for the 42.5 full-time deputies agreed upon in a 2011 memorandum of understanding between the parties.

Attorneys representing the court argue the county has misused the state funding by applying more than $700,000 of it toward administrative costs since 2013.

Deputies in court, who work as bailiffs, provide security for the court buildings and the people who appear and work in them by performing duties that include ushering inmates to and from the courtroom and screening the public at the metal detectors. There also is a deputy assigned to each judge and his or her courtroom.

Fewer deputies could lead to a potential reduction in court hours, with priority going to criminal and juvenile cases, according to the court.

On Thursday, Court of Appeals Justice Lynn Hock heard arguments from the court and county.

County officials in December 2017 sent a letter to the court stating that on July 1, it would terminate its agreement to provide deputies for court security.

County Counsel John Doering said that the letter was sent after numerous attempts since 2014 to negotiate a new MOU with the courts and that staffing levels have not changed at any time during the dispute.

The county’s last proposal says the difference in the state funding and the actual cost of providing court security amounts to two deputies, he said. The county offered to absorb the cost of one of the deputies if the court provided for the other either through funding or in a reduction of services.

Doering said the county wants an agreement that provides for a level of court security commensurate with the funding, so that if cost for providing the service increase, so, too, does the funding.

In June, the court filed a petition asking a judge to declare the county’s termination of the MOU invalid.

Attorney Dennis Peter Maio, who is representing the court, said he was “unable to comment on pending litigation” but referred to a declaration submitted by Court Chief Executive Officer Hugh Swift.

Swift, in the declarations, says a reduction in court security services would mean a reduction in the number of courtrooms open at any given time, with priority going to criminal and juvenile matters. This would lead to a delay in other types of matters like civil and family court and potentially the elimination of hearing not required by law like specialty courts for non-violent drug offenses, mental health and homelessness.

Hock will decide if the county’s termination of the MOU is valid, whether the county must continue to provide court security until a new MOU is in place and if the county can use the state fund for administrative costs.

The court’s filed petition cites 2011 realignment legislation — which shifted state program responsibilities and revenues to local governments for various criminal justice, mental health, and social services — including court security. The Trial Court Security Account allocates, through the State Controller’s Office, a specified percentage of the state’s sales tax revenue for court security.

The petition cites a portion of the legislation stating funds in the account, “shall be used solely to provide security to the trial courts and shall not be used to pay for general county administrative expenses.”

The county maintains that it is using the state fund appropriately, arguing that the expenditures are covered under “allocated services charges,” as defined by the State Controller’s Office.

Doering said the county is asking only for reimbursement of administrative costs “directly attributable to court security,” like liability insurance premiums, training, computers, uniforms, ammunition and radio communications.

While the county says the cost of court security services has outpaced the state account for years, the county has not yet had to supplement with the general fund.

Patrice Dietrich, assistance executive officer, said the county budgeted for a $292,000 hit to the general fund in 2017-18 but so far has been able to pay for excess court security costs from savings in the realignment fund from previous years.

That savings won’t last forever though, Dietrich said.

“It is clear that there is not going to be growth sufficient in the funding to sustain the operation level that we at now,” she said.

Doering said Hoch has 90 days to issue a written decision on the case.

This story was originally published November 16, 2018 at 5:32 PM.