The San Francisco city attorney’s office warned top officials on Monday that the mayor’s proposed “sobering center” in the South of Market may contravene state laws and presents a “very high legal risk,” according to a Feb. 9 memo obtained by Mission Local.
San Francisco will likely be unable to detain inebriated people at the 444 Sixth St. center, in the shadow of the Hall of Justice, if it does not meet the state standards of a “detention facility,” like safety checks, health care and food services, the memo read.
The confidential memo, written by Deputy City Attorney Brianna Voss, was sent to members of the Board of Supervisors.
Nevertheless, the Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 on Tuesday to approve a $14 million partnership between the sheriff’s office and a contractor to operate the center. Jackie Fielder and Connie Chan provided the two dissenting votes.
Mayor Daniel Lurie announced the proposal in January, and touted it as “a major step to get drugs and drug users off the streets.”
Lurie, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, police chief Derrick Lew, and Director of Public Health Daniel Tsai also received the memo.
Despite learning about the potential legal risk yesterday, the sheriff’s department intends to move forward with the center, according to Public Information Officer Larry Olson. The mayor’s office said “moving with urgency” was a key part of the city’s response to fentanyl, but did not address the city attorney’s legal concerns.
The goal of the center, officials said, is to create an alternative to jail and hospitalization for people who have been arrested for being under the influence.
The plan was for police officers to detain and transport intoxicated people to the Rapid Enforcement Support Evaluation and Triage Center, where they would then enter the custody of the sheriff’s department for up to 23 hours.
According to the memo, the sheriff’s department has said that arrestees will neither be held in cells, nor physically restrained from leaving.
But they also won’t be told they are free to leave, the city attorney’s memo said. Rather, the arrestees, who are still in custody, will be warned that they will be re-arrested and taken to either the jail or hospital if they leave before they are sober.
State regulations require a “local detention facility” or “temporary holding facility” to have trained staff, safety checks, health care services, detoxification treatment and food service. The city also has “constitutional obligations” to provide adequate medical care.
If the center does not meet those standards, there will be a “very high risk” that a court would conclude that the city cannot detain individuals there, the memo concluded.
San Francisco’s “failure to comply with State law” and “non-compliance with standards for detention facilities” could become an issue if someone detained at the center sues the city for an injury or unlawful detention at a facility that “is not permitted to be used as a detention facility.”
“Despite this legal risk,” Voss added, there are arguments that the city does not need to comply with state standards, as long as it meets constitutional requirements.
Staff from the Board of State and Community Corrections have advised the sheriff that the center is likely not a “local detention facility,” the memo said. The city attorney’s office, however, cautioned that this was not a formal assessment.
Sheriff’s office claim, that the center is a ‘sobering facility,’ violates city code
The facility could, alternatively, be considered an “authorized sobering center” that provides outpatient detox treatment if it were to be certified by another state body, the California Department of Health Care Services. The memo indicated this has not yet happened.
“The reality is, not having places to take people right now is a huge problem,” said Board President Rafael Mandelman. “I think we need to move as quickly as we can on this pilot. If it works, do a whole lot more, and if it doesn’t, find something else better.”
The sheriff’s department has described the center as a “non-licensed sobering facility” that “may not provide the same level of medical care as a jail or other detention facility,” the memo said. Thus, in their view, it is not required to comply with the legal requirements of either a detention facility or an authorized sobering center.
City administrative code, however, requires the board to obtain a special waiver to add another sobering center in SoMa if there is already a disproportionate number of the city’s social service providers relative to the neighborhood’s unhoused population. There does not appear to have been a mention of such a waiver at today’s board meeting.
The city attorney, meanwhile, expressed skepticism that the center could operate as a non-licensed sobering facility: “It is still very likely a court would conclude that the Center is a detention facility.”
Just another example of no one looking at the big picture before implementing a half-assed plan.
Seems like Lurie et al have no intention of providing shelter, healthcare and food, to people in these holding pens. No surprise, having read about the state at the jail. Thanks to Brooke Jenkins arresting people accused of misdemeanor, the jail is overrun. Most likely they will try a concentration camp outside of town, maybe together with San Jose, so the issue can go away and no one will know what happened to people at least for 50 years. Damn homeless-mentally ill- progressive drug addicts who run this city.
Campers,
Gotta go with the Sheriff on this one.
Call it what it is …
It’s a Drunk Tank and I watched the item after viewing the Mayor’s monthly appearance before the Board and I think it has a capacity of only around 25 or 50 ?
Hopefully, they’ll divert some of the junkies they’ve been arresting there too.
Fewer mindless deplorables climbing the walls.
Hats off to the Sheriff’s deputies who work harder than the cops even dream of.
go Niners !!
h.
“City administrative code, however, requires the board to obtain a special waiver to add another sobering center in SoMa if there is already a disproportionate number of the city’s social service providers relative to the neighborhood’s unhoused population.”
News to me. How do we get this deployed around 16th and Mission?
Before the officeworker exodus, SF’s enormous homeless budget could buy anything such as leases on hotels (including the Mark Hopkins). But successes were few. People still ODd and died (even though housed). This was attributed to lack of healthcare workers (can they be paid more to live within commute distance?). Last week, ML reported on DPH’s heartbreaking $17 million cut from a $3.5 billion annual budget that will devastate low income pediatric care and training for doctors at SF General. So I’m sure the decision to spend $14 million on a sobering center was not made lightly. Understanding past failures, acknowledging the current fiscal crisis, and needing to find help for drug abusers have driven Lurie and Mandelman to this. Wish I could write a big check.
Only in San Francisco could bureaucratic nonsense prevent the constructing of a standard drunk tank that can be found in every college town in the country.
It’s the Silicon Valley approach: Move fast. Break things. Ask forgivness. It is too bad because we really do need effective solutions to counter the public chaos brought on by the homeless-addict culture in the wake of Occupy Wall Street. Yes, that was when the tent cities became the norm.
People who appear to be publicly intoxicated or otherwise in an altered state could (and often do) have all sorts of medical problems going on; I agree with the City Attorney that this is a very high risk situation without the oversight of a skilled medical/psychiatric team on site. This is not only a litigation risk for the CIty, it is an unethical way to deal with people who are in trouble. Just because the public does not want to see them on the street, this does not give the authorities a right to detain them in neglectful and possibly dangerous conditions. I would be willing to bet there will quickly be a death or irreversible harm when a diabetic with abnormal blood sugar, or someone suffering a stroke like episode is thought to be “merely a drunk.”
“neglectful and possibly dangerous conditions”
More neglectful and possibly dangerous than the sidewalk where the ambulance is the first line response? Can’t ambulances serve this facility too? Looks like a lateral.
Opiate addiction under legal prohibition is inherently bad for one’s health. Rarely can people without prospects and support kick the addiction with the resources likely to be on hand.
But we’re not going to be having addicts using by our elementary school or by the entrances to our BART station or in our Muni shelters or in front of residences or small businesses.
We’re not going to be seeing the four pillars any time soon. There will be no safe consumption sites. Treatment is barely effective. Prevention is useless when people are facing down shit lives. All that leaves is enforcement.
Advocates for four pillars have had many many millions and decades to put the pieces together on this, political and funding, but have spent their time cashing checks and marking time while conditions deteriorate.
I don’t think that people should go to jail for using in public. But they need to be removed from these public facilities and this seems like a reasonable if risky effort, probably less risky than fentanyl use.
So your “ethical” solution is to just leave them on the streets? We as a city absolutely have the right to detain folks who are doing illegal drugs in public. Note the word illegal.
The options are: leave them on the street, take them to jail, take them to the hospital, or this version of a “drunk tank”. To me the drunk tank seems like the least bad option
Tent encampments arrived shortly before the 2011 Superbowl.
Just put them in jail.
I don’t believe in serious jail time for drug users. BUT if you listen to people who have managed to kick the habit, many of them got clean while incarcerated. Jail already IS a sobering center.
Put them in jail for a week with no access to opiates: it’s enough time to get through withdrawal. That gives them a fighting chance to stay clean.
San Francisco is plagued with progressives’ toxic empathy: supposed empathy for disadvantaged people that actually is bad for the city, and often for the disadvantaged people themselves. This is the best example. You’re not helping junkies by giving them a “safe space” to use drugs: you’re only supporting their addiction. A week in jail is what they need.
So you’re willing to spend around $100K/addict to imprison drug addicts? Wherever would we get the money for that? Do you want to raise taxes to fund this?
They can get out of the many nonprofit grifts or homeless funding. Itll be more effective in the long run anyway