The San Francisco city attorney’s office on Monday warned top officials that the mayor’s proposed “sobering center” in the South of Market may contravene state laws and could expose the city to “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 confidential memo, written by Deputy City Attorney Brianna Voss, was sent to members of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisors on Tuesday considered approval of a $14 million partnership between the sheriff’s office and a contractor to operate the center, which Lurie announced in January and touted as “a major step to get drugs and drug users off the streets”.
Lurie, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, police chief Derrick Lew, and Director of Health Daniel Tsai also received the memo.
Representatives from the mayor’s office and sheriff’s department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The goal of the center, officials said, was 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 that a “local detention facility” or “temporary holding facility” have trained staff, safety checks, health care services, detoxification treatment, and food services. 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.
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 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 legal requirements of either a detention facility or an authorized sobering center.
The city attorney’s memo, however, didn’t give that much credence: “It is still very likely a court would conclude that the Center is a detention facility.”
Io Yeh Gilman contributed reporting.
This is a developing story and will be updated.