Coroner’s conflict: A new state law requires an independent autopsy of in-custody deaths – Santa Maria Sun

Report on California Assembly Bill 1108 (FACTS Act) and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Legislative Reform for Institutional Accountability

California has enacted Assembly Bill 1108, the Forensic Accountability, Custodial Transparency, and Safety (FACTS) Act, a legislative measure designed to enhance the integrity of in-custody death investigations. This report analyzes the Act’s provisions, stakeholder perspectives, and its significant alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Advancing SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Mandating Independent Investigations to Ensure Institutional Transparency (Target 16.6)

The FACTS Act directly addresses the need for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions by tackling a systemic conflict of interest. California is one of only three states where elected sheriffs can concurrently serve as coroners, creating a potential for biased investigations into deaths occurring within their own facilities.

• The legislation was inspired by a 2024 Santa Barbara County grand jury report that highlighted this perceived conflict of interest.
• The Act mandates that counties with a dual sheriff-coroner system must contract with independent coroners or medical examiners to conduct autopsies for all in-custody deaths.
• This measure aims to eliminate both actual and perceived conflicts, thereby strengthening public confidence in the justice system, a core objective of SDG 16.

Promoting the Rule of Law and Equal Access to Justice (Target 16.3)

By ensuring impartial medical examinations, the FACTS Act promotes the rule of law and seeks to provide equal access to justice for a vulnerable population. Supporters, including the California Public Defenders Association, argue that independent findings provide clear, credible explanations for families and the community, preventing conflicting official messages that can erode trust.

The legislation ensures that the circumstances surrounding in-custody deaths are subject to objective scrutiny, upholding the principle that justice must be applied equally to all individuals, including those who are incarcerated.

Implementation Challenges and Stakeholder Concerns

Opposition from Law Enforcement Institutions

The California State Sheriffs’ Association and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office have voiced opposition to the FACTS Act, citing several concerns that challenge its implementation:

1. Financial Impact: Concerns exist over the potential costs to counties for outsourcing these services.
2. Logistical Strain: With 48 counties having dual sheriff-coroner roles, the legislation could create a workload imbalance for the 10 counties with independent services.
3. Process Inefficiency: Opponents argue the law unnecessarily complicates and delays death investigations without providing a discernible benefit.
4. Lack of Necessity: The Santa Barbara County Sheriff stated that the existing system has withstood legal scrutiny and that no actual conflict of interest has ever been proven.

Debate on the Scope of Reform

While the Act is seen as a step forward, some stakeholders believe it does not go far enough. Family members of individuals who have died in custody advocated for a complete and permanent separation of the sheriff and coroner offices statewide, rather than the “hybrid solution” presented by the FACTS Act. This highlights the ongoing challenge of ensuring fully responsive and inclusive decision-making as outlined in SDG Target 16.7.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

Upholding Good Health and Well-being in Custodial Settings (SDG 3)

The Act has significant implications for SDG 3 by promoting accountability for the health and well-being of inmates. A recent grand jury report on the preventable death of Caprice Fowler from a ruptured ulcer in a Santa Barbara County jail underscores the critical need for oversight. Independent investigations can expose lapses in medical care and institutional failures, creating pressure for improved healthcare standards within correctional facilities and contributing to better health outcomes for incarcerated individuals.

Reducing Inequalities within the Justice System (SDG 10)

The FACTS Act contributes to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by addressing systemic inequities affecting incarcerated persons. This population is often marginalized and lacks the means to challenge official findings. By mandating an unbiased investigative process, the law works to reduce inequalities of outcome (Target 10.3) and ensures that the fundamental rights of all individuals are protected, regardless of their custodial status.

Conclusion: A Step Toward More Just and Accountable Governance

The passage of the FACTS Act represents a significant advancement in California’s commitment to building more just, transparent, and accountable institutions, in line with the core principles of SDG 16. While facing opposition regarding its financial and logistical implications, the law is designed to strengthen public trust by ensuring that in-custody death investigations are independent and impartial. By doing so, it not only enhances the integrity of the justice system but also supports broader goals related to public health and the reduction of systemic inequalities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article directly addresses the core principles of SDG 16 by focusing on the reform of public institutions to enhance accountability, transparency, and justice. The central issue is the new FACTS Act in California, which aims to eliminate conflicts of interest in in-custody death investigations by separating the roles of sheriff and coroner. This reform is intended to build more effective and accountable institutions, promote the rule of law, and increase public trust, as highlighted by Assemblymember Gregg Hart’s statement that even the “perception of a conflict damages public trust.”

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article connects to SDG 3 by discussing the health and safety of individuals in custody. It explicitly mentions a grand jury report on “three in-custody deaths that it deemed preventable,” including the specific case of Caprice Fowler, who died from a ruptured ulcer. This points to issues in the provision of healthcare within correctional facilities and the need to prevent avoidable deaths, which is a component of ensuring healthy lives and well-being for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The entire purpose of the FACTS Act is to address this target. The law mandates independent medical investigations to prevent “actual or perceived conflicts of interest.” The article quotes grand jury Foreperson Dale Kunkel, who states, “The public now demands and deserves greater transparency and accountability from its government officials,” directly aligning with the goal of creating more transparent and accountable institutions.
2. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • The legislation is a state-level effort to strengthen the rule of law. By ensuring unbiased investigations, the law aims to provide a more just process for determining the cause of death for individuals in state custody. Assistant Public Defender Lea Villegas notes that with the new law, “cause of death is at least one factor that families of people who die in police custody will not have to question,” which speaks to ensuring access to credible information and justice for the families affected.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

1. Target 3.d: Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.
   • Within the context of a correctional facility, this target relates to the institution’s capacity to manage the health risks of its population. The article’s reference to the grand jury’s conclusion that Caprice Fowler’s death was preventable suggests a failure in the system’s ability to identify and manage health risks for inmates. The Sheriff’s Office described her death as “unavoidable,” while the grand jury saw “missed opportunities to prevent her death,” highlighting a gap in health risk management.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• Level of public confidence in government/justice institutions (Implied for Target 16.6): The article repeatedly emphasizes public trust as a key issue. Progress could be measured by changes in public perception. Dale Kunkel expresses hope that the bill will “strengthen public confidence in government,” and Gregg Hart notes that the current system leads to a situation where “There is no confidence in those investigations.”
• Number of counties with independent death investigation mechanisms (Implied for Target 16.6): The article states that “48 counties have sheriffs that also serve as coroners.” A direct indicator of progress would be the number of these counties that successfully establish contracts with independent coroners to comply with the FACTS Act.

Indicator for SDG 3 Target

• Number of preventable deaths in custody (Mentioned for Target 3.d): The article explicitly refers to a grand jury report on “three in-custody deaths that it deemed preventable.” This figure serves as a direct, measurable indicator of the effectiveness of healthcare and safety protocols within correctional facilities. A reduction in this number would signify progress toward the target.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: santamariasun.com