Also on this page: Jail suit may not be over. County found in contempt of court.

Lawyers want prosecutor to seek fines against county for jail violations

Feb. 1, 2006 -- A judge should appoint a prosecutor to seek fines totaling perhaps millions of dollars from Milwaukee County for the 16,000-plus judicially-confirmed violations of a consent decree governing jail conditions, attorneys say in court documents.

Under state law, the punitive sanctions sought could range up to $5,000 for each of the 16,662 violations confirmed by Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza.The sanctions could total more than $83 million, according to court documents.

In the future, the county should be assessed a fine of $10 per hour for every hour any inmate is held in the jail's booking room beyond 30 hours, the limit set in the consent decree, said lawyers for the the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee and American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation.

The lawyers, who represent inmates held in violation of consent decree conditions, also seek continued judicial supervision of jail operations.

"Given its history of failure to comply with the population provisions of the decree, the county simply cannot be trusted to run the jail safely without the additional safeguards and continued judicial supervision requested in this motion" the lawyers say in court filings.

Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza last month found the county in contempt of court for conditions in Sheriff David Clarke's jail that stemmed from violations of the 30-hour rule.

She also ruled the county breached the 2001 consent decree governing conditions in the jail's booking room, but did not award the monetary damages sought for the inmates. Firoenza said the consent decree did not contemplate them and they were inappropriate under the law.

Fiorenza's ruling means that "inmates who were harmed by Milwaukee County’s thousands of violations of the consent decree and massive pattern of contempt of court – are not entitled to any monetary remedy to compensate them for the injuries they suffered," Legal Aid and ACLU said in a prepared statement.

The lawyers asked Fiorenza to appoint District Attorney Michael McCann, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, or a special prosecutor to file a complaint seeking punitive sanctions for contempt of court.

Under state law "those are the only officials who are authorized to obtain such sanctions," Legal Aid and ACLU said.

“We hope the necessary steps will be taken to insure that overcrowding will not endanger the health and safety of Milwaukee County Jail inmates and correctional officers in the future," Legal Aid lawyer Peter Koneazny said. "We have asked that any fines levied against the County for past violations be directed to preventing overcrowding and improving conditions, facilities and programs at the jail.”

“We are asking for appropriate action from the public officials who have the authority to vindicate the rights of the thousands of individuals who were victimized by the County’s contempt of court,” said Laurence Dupuis, Legal Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, added.

To read the letter asking Fiorenza to appoint a prosecutor to seek sanctions, click here.

To read the motion seeking other remedies, click here.

---

Jail suit may not be over
Plaintiffs consider damages appeal

Jan. 9, 2006 -- The plaintiffs in the court action that successfully sought to have the county held in contempt of court over Sheriff David Clarke's jail operations are considering an appeal of the judge's decision not to award damages, according to a lawyer involved in the case.

"The plaintiffs are evaluating what additional steps to take to enforce this decree as to these violations and we are evaluating whether to appeal the court's decision on damages," said Peter Koneazny, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, Inc.

Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza last week found the county in contempt of court. She also ruled the county breached a 2001 consent decree governing conditions in the jail's booking room, but did not award the monetary damages sought for the inmates. Firoenza said the consent decree did not contemplate them and they were inappropriate under the law.

"We feel it is very significant that the court found the Sheriff in contempt and its also very significant that the judge found that Sheriff committed a 'staggering' number of violations wilfully," Koneazny said. "The court soundly rejected the defendants' claim that they were not responsible for the violations.Obviously, we’re disappointed in, and we disagree with, the judge’s conclusion that damages are not available."

---

County found in contempt of court
Judge rips Sheriff Clarke's jail operations, but denies damages

Jan. 6, 2006 -- Milwaukee County this week was found in contempt of court by a judge who said conditions that existed in the jail booking room "are unacceptable, if not appalling."

Descriptions of conditions by detainees and former detainees included "overly crowded conditions, inmates who were forced to sit or sleep on the floor next to urinals, inmates who had to sit up for hours and hours, lack of hygiene, unsanitary conditions, inmates who were not given pillows or blankets to sleep on, cells that were infested with bugs, cold temperatures, bodily fluids on the floor and bad odors," Circuit Judge Clare Fiorenza said in her decision.

The descriptions were not directly contradicted by the county, she said.

Fiorenza, while ruling the county also breached a 2001 consent decree governing conditions in the jail's booking room, did not award the monetary damages sought for the inmates by the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation Inc. and Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, Inc. Firoenza said the consent decree did not contemplate them and they were inappropriate under the law.

Clarke: his department's jail operations lead to contempt of court finding

Sheriff David Clarke's department violated the consent decree by detainingmore than 16,000 inmates more than 30 hours each in the crowded jail booking room over a 2 1/2 year period.

"The sheer number of violations, 16,662, is staggering," Fiorenza wrote, adding: "Although Milwaukee County contends that it was unaware of the extent of the problem, it is beyond this Court's comprehension how over 16,000 violations of the consent decree could go undetected."

"This court is satisfied, and so finds, that the actions of Milwaukee County officials were intentional," she said.

There were violations before March 2002, when Clarke was appointed sheriff, but numbers soared after he was sworn in and remained high until the ACLU and Legal Aid brought the contempt motion, records show.While there were 18 violations in December 2001 and 20 in January 2002, for example, there were 518 in December 2002 and 830 in January 2003.

Sheriff's deputies complained to a County Board committee in December 2002 and January 2003 that overcrowding in the booking room was creating unsafe work conditions, Fiorenza said. Those complaints "should have raised suspicions and prompted further investigation of the situation in the booking area of the jail; however, the record does not demonstrate that any action was taken by the county."

The county argued that the thousands of violations of the consent decree should be ignored because it had been in substantial compliance, but Fiorenza rejected that argument.

"The sheer numbers and seriousness of those violations cannot be overlooked simply because Milwaukee County complied with some of the provisions," she wrote.

The county clearly knew and was able to tell which inmates had been held in the booking room for more than 30 hours, Fiorenza said.

"Had Milwaukee County acted upon information it had, there would not have been 16,662 violations of this provision," she wrote.

The violations stopped right after the contempt motion was filed, she said.

"The speed at which Milwaukee County was able to remedy the problem and improve the conditions in the booking area demonstrates that had the County made a serious effort to comply with the thirty-hour requirement, it could have prevented the violations."

To read earlier stories on Clarke's jail situation, click here.