After years of promises, debates and delays, San Francisco finally has a plan to get chronic inebriates off the street and into care. And it actually seems to be working.

Of course, now, thanks to petty politics, there's a move to kill it.

For years the city has struggled to reach its impoverished chronic drinkers. A small core of them, probably 30 to 60, regularly pass out on sidewalks, so intoxicated that an ambulance must be called for treatment.

They are typically picked up and taken to a hospital, where a San Francisco police officer must wait for them to be medically cleared so that a citation for public drunkenness can be issued. The officer explains the charge, tells the suspect that he is required to report to court on a certain date, and has him sign the citation.

At that point the officer leaves, and the suspect throws the citation in the trash. He has no more intention of showing up in court than he does of auditioning for a role in the next ACT play.

The problem was that there was never a consequence. Until now.

Two years ago, the police, district attorney, sheriff's department and courts agreed that they needed to do a better job of handling chronic inebriates. The District Attorney's Office initially decided to track individuals with 20 or more "failure to appear" citations in the past two years, but the list exceeded 100 individuals.

They narrowed the search to people with 20 or more missed court appearances in the last 12 months. That was still some 30 people. Two months ago they decided to go after the seven worst offenders, declaring that failing to appear constituted contempt of court.

Facing jail time

The results were awesome, says Bevan Dufty, the mayor's homeless point person. Police picked up the offenders early on a Wednesday morning, before they were so intoxicated that they needed medical attention. They were in jail for two days. Friday they appeared before Superior Court Judge Garrett Wong, who had some bad news for them: They were subject to as many as five days in jail for every missed appearance.

"You should have seen the look on their faces," Dufty said. "It was like, 'You have got to be kidding me.' These people had never had consequences before. The cop would pick you up and then they'd release you."

But it was what happened next that really made the difference. Defendants could choose to serve the jail time or go into a monitored addiction treatment program. Miss an appointment and they'd go back to court.

"At this stage, five of the seven are in active treatment," Dufty said. "And not a single one has missed an appearance."

It sounds like a huge success.

Wait a minute

But Public Defender Jeff Adachi could put a halt to it all.

He found one of the two defendants who decided to take the jail time. Adachi argues that immediately putting the defendant before a judge instead of a jury violates due process and that asking someone to sign a citation is not the same as a court order.

Adachi's critics complain that he's doing it either to clog the courts with long, convoluted jury trials, or to make work for his staff because the public defender's caseload has been steadily dropping for years.

Regardless, there is concern that the court will uphold Adachi's appeal. And then, says an influential insider in Superior Court, "We're right back where we started."

Actually, that's not true. There are other possibilities.

For starters, District Attorney George Gascón could simply charge the chronic inebriates with public intoxication. (Gascón's critics, by the way, say he's reluctant to charge cases because he wants to keep his conviction rate high.) Adachi's office would demand a jury trial, but that wouldn't clog the courts.

But that would mean officers would have to wait until someone is stone cold knocked out until he could be arrested, which means the offender would need medical attention. And if the offender is taken to jail, he's never there long enough to be assessed or make a court appearance.

Visible results

Holding the arrestee long enough so that he can sober up and make a court date is the critically missing piece that would need to be resolved.

"We are just talking about a hold to get the bottle out of their mouth or the needle out of their arm for a while," San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr said.

Because the takeaway from the early days of the current program can be seen in flesh and blood.

"Two weeks ago, I went to a trial for an individual," Dufty said. "And what I couldn't believe was how much better he looked. The arresting officers all said it, too. They said they had never seen him looking so good."

Now, there may be those who will say no one should be put in custody for public drunkenness. Suhr suggests we consider the alternative.

"The second-leading cause of death on the street is exposure," Suhr said. "Winter is coming. We can't continue to do nothing."
