Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inmate Property Transfers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press sheriff on inconsistent property rules after transfers between county jails
Summary
At the March 5 meeting the Civilian Body Commission raised repeated inspector and resident reports that items allowed at one facility are seized at others during transfers, sometimes costing people money and provoking altercations; sheriff staff said some removals stem from watch-commander discretion during transfers and asked for case-level follow-ups.
The Los Angeles County Civilian Body Commission for Institutional Inspections pressed sheriff's staff on March 5 over inconsistent application of property rules when people are transferred between county jails.
Commissioners said inspectors and people in custody reported that items permitted at Men’s Central Jail (MCJ) have later been confiscated at North County Correctional Facility (NCCF), even when the items fit in the single property bag provided for transfers. Chair opened the topic by asking sheriff representatives for follow-up on inspection notes.
"Our incarcerated individuals are allowed to have whatever type of property they would like, but it has to fit inside one bag that we provide them," Commander Montoya said, explaining the department's written transfer rule and available options (mailing at the person's expense, release to a designated person, or discard of excess items). Commissioners countered that inspections and multiple first-person reports show the policy is not being applied uniformly.
Several commissioners and an attendee identified only as Roy described concrete harms: people losing commissary funds and personal effects, deputies facing altercations during transfers, and residents being placed in disciplinary housing over disputed items. "It puts us in a difficult situation because now there's that inconsistency," one inspector said, urging systemwide equity rather than leaving such decisions to the watch commander on duty.
Sheriff staff told the commission that some removals occur as a negotiation tactic—allowing additional items momentarily to secure cooperation during transport—then later removing items at the receiving facility's intake search. Staff also said searches at transfer and arrival points are operationally necessary to control contraband and the jail's internal bartering system.
Commissioners asked for follow-up documentation and broader remedies. They agreed to continue documenting the pattern rather than focusing solely on individual cases and requested that the department provide specific reports on where and why property is removed during transfers and what training or policy clarifications will be issued to reduce discretionary variation.
Next steps: the commission asked staff to compile the inspection evidence of cross-facility discrepancies and to add a tracking item to the new public LD follow-up tracker for sheriff responses and timelines. The commission also recommended that the sheriff's department provide clearer guidance to watch commanders so that permitted items do not get removed at receiving facilities without documented cause.
