|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
What to know:
- Massachusetts has no uniform system for housing pre-arraignment detainees. Sheriffs and municipalities have developed county-by-county arrangements with different admission policies and responsibilities.
- Suffolk, Plymouth and Bristol counties have the highest rates of refusing arrestees.
- Some sheriffs operate dedicated regional lockups, while others use existing correctional facilities. Some charge municipalities nightly fees, while others cover costs. Refusals were rare in counties with adequate facilities, medical care and cooperation. Disputes occurred where staffing and funding fell short.
Across the state, county sheriffs have developed different systems for housing the newly arrested until they appear in court. Sheriffs differ widely in who they accept, who pays and how much help they expect from local police.
Plymouth, Suffolk and Bristol counties refused detainees at the highest rates in the state, according to data obtained by The Light. Other counties accepted large numbers of arrestees without turning anyone away, while some reported few admissions and refusals.
State law requires cities and towns with more than 5,000 residents to maintain lockups for pre-arraignment detainees, people arrested after courts close who must be held until they can appear before a judge.
Although the law doesn’t assign that responsibility to sheriffs, many police departments have come to rely on county sheriffs to house detainees under negotiated agreements, either to save resources or because their cities or towns lack holding cells.
The result is a patchwork. In some counties, it’s rare for a sheriff to refuse an arrestee, because of cooperation, better-equipped facilities or clear agreements. In other counties, staffing shortages, lack of resources and disputes over responsibility can drive up refusals, consuming police time and taxpayer dollars.
From January through July, Bristol County refused 79 arrestees, about 6% of all requests for admission, giving it the third-highest refusal rate in the state. Plymouth County had the highest rate, refusing 30 arrestees, or about 12% of its total requests. Suffolk County refused the largest number overall: 164, or about 7.6% of its total requests.
In western Massachusetts, Hampden County accepted all 1,684 it received, but suspended weekend intake for more than a month due to staffing and budget pressures. Counties such as Hampshire and Worcester operate dedicated jail facilities just for pre-arraignment detention, while others rely on existing jails and varying levels of support from local police.
These different approaches also reflect different views among sheriffs.
“The law is clear,” said Hampshire County Sheriff Patrick Cahillane: Sheriffs aren’t obligated to hold people the local police have just arrested. “But that’s the legal interpretation. Then you get into the ethical and moral pieces and, as a society that tries to care about people, ask: What is the best option for those individuals?”
So Hampshire County runs the Hampshire Regional Police Lockup facility, just for pre-arraignment detainees, on the county jail campus in Northampton. It refused no arrestees in January through July this year and accepted 561.
The Bristol County Sheriff’s Office doesn’t have a separate regional lock-up. It houses pre-arraignment detainees in New Bedford’s Ash Street Jail.
“We get to run our houses as we see fit based on the needs and the resources we have,” Bristol County Sheriff Paul Heroux said. “Just like every police department runs their police shop slightly differently, we all follow state law. But when state law is silent, we get to use our discretion.”
When regional lockups reach their limits
In Bristol County, refusals of pre-arraignment detainees have become a source of tension between Heroux and local police chiefs. Records obtained by The Light show Ash Street Jail refused admission 135 times after medical and mental health screenings in 2025, up from 32 in 2022.
Police chiefs say refusals shift the burden back to departments with fewer resources, forcing officers to guard detainees at hospitals or police stations instead of patrolling.
“I get their frustration,” Heroux said, but added that sheriffs are not required to house pre-arraignment detainees. “We have a duty first to the inmates that the judges and the courts send to us, not to the police.”
In August, Heroux said the 138-year-old Ash Street Jail lacks the staff and resources to safely house some detainees with medical needs or suicide risk. Fewer than 15 officers work weekend night shifts and the jail’s three-story design makes close monitoring difficult.
Other counties are struggling as well.
Hampden County, which includes Springfield, houses male arrestees at the county jail in Ludlow and female arrestees at a regional women’s jail in Chicopee.
From January through July, Hampden County recorded 1,684 pre-arraignment detainee intakes, the second-highest total in the state after Suffolk County. Unlike Suffolk, Hampden did not turn anyone away.
The high volume strained staffing and budgets, prompting the sheriff’s office to suspend weekend intakes for more than a month this summer, except for towns with fewer than 5,000 people. Robert Rizzuto, a spokesperson for the Hampden County Sheriff’s Office, told The Light that the office was also strained by the number of detainees who had to be taken directly to the hospital after intake.
When the county resumed weekend intakes in August, it came with stricter conditions. Police now have to hold people arrested on domestic violence charges during the mandatory six-hour cooling-off period and obtain hospital evaluations for detainees with apparent urgent medical needs.
“Accepting regional lockups for a county jail is good practice, but it is not mandated by the state,” Rizzuto wrote in an email to The Light. “And at a time when sheriffs’ budgets are tight, individual sheriff’s offices have to do what is right for them, as outside hospital transports come with round-the-clock staffing needs.”
The Hampden sheriff’s office estimated that suspending weekend intake saved about $30,000 a week in overtime and the cost of backfilling positions for hospital transports.
“Think about that compounded for one sheriff’s office over 52 weeks,” Rizzuto said. “Then consider it in the context of 13 county jails in the Commonwealth. And this is just the financial side, without considering if their medical staff is equipped to deal with certain conditions.”
Sheriffs’ relationships with municipalities also vary. Bristol charges a nightly fee, while Hampshire, Barnstable and Worcester cover housing costs themselves. Some counties have MOUs requiring local police to assist even after custody is transferred, while others rely on ongoing communication with police departments.
Different models can work
Hampshire County was the first in Massachusetts to build a standalone facility housing pre-arraignment detainees. The idea emerged in the early 1980s because the county’s house of correction did not meet state public health standards for regional lockups, Sheriff Cahillane said. Early community policing efforts also played a role. “They wanted police officers to be back on the street as fast as possible,” Cahillane said.
The facility in Northampton is particularly important because state law does not require communities with fewer than 5,000 residents to maintain lockups. Twelve of Hampshire County’s 20 municipalities fall below that threshold, and the county is home to five colleges, including the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Cahillane said.
“And so we decided to work together with the police chiefs and the local officials to design and build a police lockup that met all of the standards that were required,” he said.
A 1996 study confirmed the need for a facility, and the Legislature authorized $2.6 million the following year for its design and construction. The 24-cell lockup opened in 2002. It is connected to the house of correction, allowing medical staff to evaluate detainees.
Cahillane said most law enforcement agencies see caring for people in custody as part of their responsibility. “If we as a society arrest people and hold people, we have a responsibility to make sure that they’re taken care of in a constitutional manner.”
Barnstable County Sheriff Donna D. Buckley shares that view. Since May 2023, State Police and departments in 15 Cape Cod municipalities have been able to bring pre-arraignment detainees to the county’s existing correctional facility in Bourne.
“I personally think from a taxpayer’s perspective, it’s more cost effective to incorporate lockups into a facility that already is in the business of holding people safely,” Buckley said.
Worcester County is marking five years of housing pre-arraignment detainees in a dedicated facility, the Sheriff’s Office Intake and Medical Unit in West Boylston. In 2021, the state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance approved an estimated $35 million project to combine medical and intake services in the facility.
It includes a clinic with contracted medical providers available around the clock; an observation unit for people who are sick, injured or require separate cells; and a regional intake area where detainees are screened, processed and held until court. Those reporting suicidal thoughts or self-harm are placed on mental health status until they are cleared.
The sheriff’s office can still deny admission. Each police department signs an agreement establishing the standards for accepting or refusing detainees, and those requiring hospitalization may be turned away.
“While our medical team is extremely capable and does amazing work here, they cannot provide the same level of care at a fully equipped hospital when it comes to specialized equipment, medical staff, or procedures like MRI, surgeries, etc,” Worcester County Sheriff’s Office Communications Director Eric Eisner wrote in an email to The Light.
From January through July of this year, Worcester County accepted 348 pre-arraignment detainees and refused 14. Four of those refused required hospital admission. Others were turned away either because the facility had reached its 10-person capacity, they had warrants from outside Worcester County, or they were women.
“If we accepted custody of an individual who needed hospital care, the Sheriff’s Office would have to assign two of our own officers to accompany the individual at the hospital 24/7,” wrote Eisner. “This would be a tremendous draw on our resources and presents costly overtime implications that our department would have to account for.”
Cooperation and funding fill gaps in a state law
Worcester estimated that its program saves local public safety agencies $200 per detainee each day and has saved taxpayers $1 million over five years.
Pre-arraignment detention facilities and services are not cheap. Hampshire County spent over $350,000 on arrestees’ detention in fiscal year 2026, covering payroll, food, utilities and maintenance through the sheriff’s budget. Cahillane believes very few communities could afford to build and operate a facility that meets state standards.
But the sheriff’s office does not bear every cost. Its agreement with cities and towns makes municipalities responsible for detainees’ medical and psychiatric care, medication and transportation.
Police generally take injured arrestees to the hospital before bringing them to the lockup. If hospital care is needed after admission, the department provides transportation and guards.
“We’ve got a great working relationship with the police departments because we’ve done it for so long now,” Cahillane said.
Barnstable County has a similar arrangement. Buckley said local police departments assist sheriff’s officers guarding detainees at the hospital whenever needed and help cover other significant expenses.
“In other words, I’m not using resources at my own expense to accommodate the lockup if it’s not possible for us to do it,” she said.
Bristol County police chiefs and Sheriff Heroux’s office have been negotiating an agreement since 2023, but disputes over refusals have strained relationships and slowed progress. All police chiefs must sign before the agreement can take effect.
“We understand,” Heroux said, “that once the police hand somebody off to us, they need to keep their police officers on the road, just like we need to keep our correction officers in the housing units,” Heroux said. “And that goes back to the whole thing, why we need to reject some people in the first place.”
Hampshire County Sheriff Cahillane, who is also president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association, said that from a moral and ethical standpoint, sheriffs have an obligation to provide the best care available, and correctional facilities are generally better equipped than police stations to house detainees. Legally, however, the responsibility remains unsettled.
“I think it would be very wise for the Legislature to look at the state law and update if they believe that it’s appropriate,” he said. “The Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association would be very happy to step in and discuss this.”
Email Eleonora Bianchi at ebianchi@newbedfordlight.org.
How about using the renovated Capitol Theater for housing the newly arrested until they appear in court?
Apples, oranges and avocados are “compared” in this agenda based article.
We need to address why some Massachusetts municipalities flaunt their legal responsibility for provision of secure holding areas for overnight arrestees.
The Bristol County Sheriff, as an act of courtesy, has extended a very, very cheap alternative to the City of New Bedford and has declined approximately 6% of New Bedford’s holding requests from January 1, 2026 through July 31, 2026.
As New Bedford has little to no major employment opportunities, consideration of a New Bedford Penal Holding Facility is a viable option.
Charging other municipalities a monthly base fee and then a per retainee fee is one financial structure.
Complaining about a courtesy extended, by another, to you is disingenuous to say the least. The fact that the charged cost of this courtesy is way too low is something the Sheriff should evaluate in depth.
,