|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor
|
|
S.B. 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 15, 2002
The Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller
Senate President
State House
Annapolis MD 21401
Dear President Miller:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland Constitution, I have today
vetoed Senate Bill 11 - Local Correctional Facilities - Inmate Transfers.
Senate Bill 11 authorizes the sheriff of a county or a governing body of a county or a
municipal corporation that operates a local correctional facility to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with another sheriff or political subdivision that
operates a correctional facility to authorize the transfer of inmates from one facility to
another.
Under current law, a judge may sentence an individual to a local correctional facility
if the sentence is for a period of not more than 18 months and the judge imposing the
sentence is in a jurisdiction that is a party to the operation and maintenance of the
local correctional facility to which the individual is sentenced. Currently, some
informal arrangements exist between local detention centers in the State for certain
transfers, particularly when a local correctional employee or guard requires
detention, in order to avoid an awkward or potentially dangerous situation.
Senate Bill 11 is too broad. The bill generally authorizes local correctional facilities to
enter into a memorandum of understanding to permit transfers of inmates between
facilities. The bill provides no guidance to local facilities as to what the memorandum
of understanding should cover, nor does it place any restrictions on the authority of a
facility to transfer an inmate to another facility. In other provisions of current law
regarding transfer of inmates, certain restrictions do exist. For example, Section
9-304 of the Correctional Services Article permits the Commissioner of Correction, by
agreement, to transfer a minimum security inmate to a local correctional facility "for
participation in community-oriented correctional programs." Section 9-303 of the
Correctional Services Article authorizes the Commissioner of Correction to accept the
transfer of an inmate from a local correctional facility if the inmate "requires special
behavioral or medical treatment or maximum security detention" and the local
correctional facility is not equipped to provide those services or that type of detention.
No conditions, procedures or restrictions exist in Senate Bill 11. A local jurisdiction
would not need any legitimate reason to transfer an inmate. The law provides no
guidance on issues such as whether there is a maximum distance that an inmate
could be transferred, potentially allowing the relocation of an inmate away from his
or her family or visitors in a manner that was not anticipated at the time of
sentencing. The bill would also presumably allow one local jurisdiction to decide to
become a "host" jurisdiction, and build its capacity to hold inmates and receive
inmates from jurisdictions that choose not to take steps to manage their inmate
population. There may be legitimate reasons and needs for a local jurisdiction to
transfer some of its inmates to other facilities. Senate Bill 11 is too loosely worded,
and does not require any demonstration of those reasons or needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 4393 -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
