San Mateo County oversight panel debates digital‑mail policy as community urges return of physical mail

Captain Bill Fogarty, of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, told the county civilian oversight commission that the office adopted a vendor‑scanned digital‑mail system in 2021 as part of a broader safety strategy intended to reduce fire and narcotics risks inside the jails. “There is pending litigation regarding this issue,” Fogarty said; he added that the system sends incoming mail to an outside vendor that scans material and makes a digital copy available on facility tablets, while originals are retained and mailed to people upon release.

The captain described layered safety measures: a negative‑airflow mail room, X‑ray screening, personal protective equipment for mail processors, an upgraded body scanner, a fentanyl‑detection canine named Farrow, and Narcan made available through a vending machine and on every pod. Fogarty cited a national figure, saying “78% of incarcerated people in The United States no longer receive physical mail,” and said several California counties have moved to digital mail. He repeatedly declined to discuss contract details and some operational questions, saying litigation limits what staff could disclose.

Community speakers urged a different balance. Nancy Goodman, a Redwood City resident and volunteer working with community groups, described a card‑writing project sending the same message to everyone in custody and thanked staff who had helped facilitate voting and religious services. Deacon Lauren McCombs and other commenters said physical mail provides comfort that a scanned image cannot replicate and argued that tablet access is limited or inconsistent. “The risk of drugs isn't a good reason to take away your free‑speech rights,” Goodman said. Multiple speakers and commissioners pressed for concrete data connecting the digital system to fewer exposures or contraband incidents.

Commissioners asked about chain of custody and what the vendor in Florida actually does when it receives mail. Staff and the captain said the vendor creates the digital images and retains physical items offsite; they said the county is not contracted to test paper for narcotics and suggested the contract is a public record. One speaker said Smart Communications retains sender information for seven years, a claim the commission heard from a public commenter and staff clarified would require reviewing the contract or public records.

No policy change or vote on mail procedures occurred at the meeting. Commissioners and staff agreed to continue the discussion at a later, more detailed session; several members asked the sheriff’s office to provide more data on processing, personnel protections and any tracking of contraband or exposures that could be attributed to mail. The commission also flagged procurement work: staff said an RFP in progress aims to increase tablet availability if a contract is awarded.

The commission did not adopt any ordinance or directive at the meeting; instead members and public commenters asked the sheriff’s office to return with more documentation and to explore whether limited or piloted physical‑mail options could be implemented without creating unequal treatment among residents in custody.