The La Plata County Jail is no longer accepting intoxicated people who refuse to enter a detoxification facility and have not been charged with a crime.
To hold intoxicated people in the jail under the state’s emergency commitment provisions without criminal charges was a last resort, and patients in the emergency room or detox facility who exhibit violent or threatening behavior can still be brought to the jail under harassment charges.
Sheriff Sean Smith said the change, which took effect Sept. 9, comes at the recommendation of the physician who works in the jail.
The doctor informed Smith that the jail could not provide the level of care necessary for those patients unless they are charged and booked, which most detox refusals are not.
Individuals held for detoxification who have not been charged with a crime are entitled to a different set of rights and privileges than the general jail population and are not eligible for the jail’s prescription drug plan.
For example, someone held in the jail for detoxification under an emergency commitment must be evaluated by a physician – something the jail does not have on-site at all hours of the day.
The need to provide different services, paired with the inability to offer medicated detox to non-inmates, created too high a liability risk, Smith said.
So far this year, the jail has held at least 58 intoxicated people until they are sober and no longer a danger to themselves or others (Smith said the number may be higher).
Smith went to leaders at area police departments, CommonSpirit Mercy Hospital and Axis Health System to inform them of the change in advance.
“What I told them is, ‘I'm not the appropriate place for this. I don't have the right medical care for this. But if you have no other option, you're going to have to call the officer back and they're going to have to do some extra paperwork, because they have to be charged to come to me,’” Smith said.
The La Plata County Jail was one of just a handful, possibly even just two jails statewide, that still accepted detox refusals. The practice will likely be proscribed in the jail standards under development by a legislatively created commission, according to Smith. The yet-to-be-developed standards will go into effect in 2026.
Value noted by jail standards commission
“People who are acutely ill, who have physical or behavioral health needs, belong in a medical setting that can provide an appropriate level of care. However, hospitals and providers often turn away and refuse to serve people experiencing incarceration, which leaves vulnerable individuals in the care of jails. This often results in higher rates of isolation for the person experiencing incarceration because jails are not equipped, staffed or funded to provide this level of specialized care and must ultimately defer to safety and security considerations.”
“The very first meeting I had on this as a sheriff was in 2015,” Smith said. “It has been an ongoing thing forever. I've allowed myself, as the sheriff, to continue to take on this liability forever.”
However, Smith is recognizing that the practice is neither sustainable nor in the best interests of clients.
In recent weeks, Smith has reevaluated several possible avenues for liability connected to the ways the jail operates.
He and county staff were directed by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday to pursue negotiations with municipalities seeking to house inmates at the jail, in part due to the financial liability that can arise from inmates’ medical needs.
The letter Smith sent to municipal police chiefs concerning that decision on Aug. 1 sparked conflict with city of Durango officials (the parties talked in person before Smith delivered the letter). This time around, Smith said he was careful to engage with partners only in person, rather than in writing.
In an email Wednesday, Durango Police Chief Brice Current thanked Smith for the communication but lamented the decision.
“In hindsight, I wish we had convened with all critical partners impacted by this decision to explore alternatives and set clear timelines,” Current wrote. “It feels as though decisions were made without sufficient input or collaboration from those involved, leaving everyone to address the consequences rather than proactively strategizing different approaches.”
The decision was understandable considering liability and possible future jail standards, the chief said, noting that drafts of state legislation enforcing oversight of civil commitments earlier this year had contained a ban on keeping detox refusal patients in jail. The provision was taken out before the bill passed.
“My thoughts are with the many individuals I've seen tragically freeze to death over the years, which is a significant reason why the legislation was amended last year to state that detox refusals may be brought to jail,” Current wrote.
rschafir@durangoherald.com
