Man Held for 9 Extra Months Freed From Jail

In their latest jailhouse snafu, Los Angeles County sheriff’s officials have disclosed that they mistakenly held an inmate serving time on misdemeanor traffic violations for nine months after he should have been released.

The inmate, Thao Quoc Huynh, 33, had been ordered to concurrently serve four 150-day sentences after he was convicted of driving under the influence, hit-and-run and two other traffic violations in May 1997.

However, confusion over court paperwork led to the inmate serving four consecutive sentences, a move that kept Huynh behind bars for 271 days beyond his correct release date. Jail officials discovered the mistake Monday as deputies in the bustling Inmate Reception Center were preparing to set Huynh free.

Officials from the department’s risk management bureau met Huynh as he was leaving jail, and offered to write him a $10,000 check--if he agreed to waive his right to sue the county, according to sheriff’s sources.

However, Huynh declined and now the department is bracing for a hefty lawsuit that could add to the tens of thousands of dollars in settlements it has already paid over the last few years to inmates who were illegally held in the County Jail.

Sheriff Sherman Block expressed frustration Friday over the error, saying that it is “clearly an over-detention.”

“There is no question it happened,” he said. “I’m disappointed.”

Block said the paperwork--sent to the jail from the Alhambra courthouse--was ambiguous, indicating that Huynh was to serve both concurrent and consecutive sentences. Instead of calling for clarification, a jail clerk simply assumed that the inmate had been ordered to serve the sentences back to back, the sheriff said.

“These things are human errors and they happen,” Block said. “I’m sure this guy knew he should have been out and he didn’t say anything about it.”

But according to court records, Huynh relied on a Vietnamese interpreter during the court proceedings. It is unclear if he was even able to communicate with deputies at the jails to tell them that he was being held too long.

He could not be reached for comment Friday.

According to department documents, the problem of over-detaining inmates has been going on for years. In 1997, nearly 700 inmates were held in county jails for an average of 6.9 days past their ordered release dates. One inmate was held 260 days too long; two others were held for 90 days or longer. All too aware of the county’s financial liability on the issue, the department’s risk management unit in 1997 paid nearly $200,000 to 548 inmates who were incarcerated for a total of 3,694 days beyond their sentences--on the condition that they agree in writing not to sue.

Huynh’s lawyer said Friday that she warns her clients that they could spend days in jail waiting to be released.

“They always get the runaround,” said Deputy Public Defender Bernadette Everman. “Unless you have a private attorney or a big name, you are going to get lost in the system.”

Block said the department is establishing a computer system that will link the Inmate Reception Center with courthouses, eliminating the need to manually process thousands of pieces of paperwork at the jails each night.

The department has also started releasing some inmates directly from the Criminal Courts Building downtown and courthouses in East Los Angeles and Van Nuys in an effort to reduce the number of snafus, Block said.

To keep pressure on the Sheriff’s Department to fix the problem, a number of attorneys have filed lawsuits against the county on the behalf of inmates who have been over-detained.

Two such suits, brought by attorney Stephen Yagman, are set to go to trial in U.S. District Court within the next two weeks. In one of the cases, U.S. Judge William J. Rea ruled last week that although it is reasonable for the Sheriff’s Department to keep inmates so they can be “checked out” of jail, the department cannot detain inmates just to look for warrants and holds. Such tasks, Rea said, should be done before inmates’ release dates.

“It is a significant rebuke of Block for acting lawlessly as the chief law enforcement officer of the county,” Yagman said of Rea’s ruling. “The order demonstrates, more than anything, the arrogance of Block’s power.”