Indexes
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Male-female marriage has survived 5,000 years (137)
- Comments in article concern writer (87)
- Poor economy, debt force Lodi Memorial Hospital to lay off 44 workers (50)
- Palin bashing is disgraceful (37)
- Obama's temperament shift is not confusing (34)
- Lodi council spends $500,000 in hopes to separate itself from Stockton (28)
- CHP: Road rage leads to Highway 12 crash (23)
- Two accused of damaging sprinkler at Lodi courthouse (21)
- Thoughts after the election (20)
- Times will be a little better if we pull together and 'Shop Lodi' (19)
Cost to taxpayers: Roughly $20,000 a year
Broken windows at the Lodi City Jail adding up to hefty price
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
For the third time in the last year-and-a-half, an inmate at the Lodi City Jail has broken a cell window that will cost about $10,000 to replace.
Jose Angel Delgado, 32, is facing felony charges related to the Monday evening incident and a judge set bail Tuesday at $175,000. He could also face more charges due to an outburst in court.
Criminal matters aside, odds of the city getting any actual restitution for the broken window are slim.
In other words taxpayers are paying roughly $20,000 a year to replace jail cell windows — which take months to replace because they're specially ordered.
Police officials are going to see if they can get tougher glass, but that's a challenge because they are not simply made of glass. The thick windows are a material that's not quite plastic and not glass, and it allows electricity to pass through, said Lt. J.P. Badel.
The electricity is linked to a system that allows jailers to push a button and turn the windows opaque. They use it to move women and men without having them see one another, as well as to move juveniles through the jail because they cannot be in the same area as adult inmates.
Of the jail's 10 cells that can hold two people each, two now have broken windows. The jail is used as a holding area for all prisoners going to court in Lodi, and it often fills up, especially after holiday weekends.
An easy alternative would be to put bars in front of the windows, Lt. Chris Piombo said, but he noted that the Bureau of Prison guidelines call for alternatives, because inmates can hang themselves from bars.
Though the windows are supposed to be tough, they weren't strong enough for an inmate to break one with his fist in September 2006, the first time a window was broken.
The 21-year-old inmate, who was in jail for a misdemeanor offense, broke a finger in the process.
About a month or six weeks ago, a county inmate broke another window, Badel said.
And on Monday evening, Delgado allegedly yanked a phone off the wall and slammed it against the window at least twice, as the cracked window indicates.
Delgado was initially arrested around 7 p.m. Monday, a day after he was accused of brandishing a gun at another man. Police stopped him near Lodi Avenue and Washington Street, and would have booked him at the jail and released him on a misdemeanor citation, Piombo said.
But then Delgado allegedly began fighting police, leading an officer to call for rapid back-up. Delgado fought so hard that he bent a patrol car door, Piombo said.
Once at the jail, Delgado was calm and was placed in a normal jail cell. About 10 minutes later, he became agitated, started banging things in his cell and then broke the window, Piombo said.
Delgado was restrained in a chair used for that purpose, then placed in a different cell without a phone.
He appeared in Lodi court Tuesday, where proceedings were halted when he allegedly made a comment in the courtroom. A judge issued a protective order for someone who was possibly threatened.
That matter is still under investigation and a prosecutor declined to say specifically who was threatened, since charges have not yet been filed.
Delgado is now being held in the San Joaquin County Jail in French Camp, where cells still have bars.
Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback
sam wrote on Mar 15, 2008 3:03 PM:
4586 wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:56 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:03 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 14, 2008 9:57 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:18 PM:
Former Lodi Resident wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:30 AM:
Former Lodi Resident wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:22 AM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:55 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:55 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:55 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:47 PM:
s & W 500 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:46 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:58 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:51 PM:
"
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:50 PM:
Maybe their insurance went up after that dude shot his hand. "
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:47 PM:
Zzzzeeeet! bahahaha! "
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:45 PM:
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:39 PM:
Caveman... I love the clown face! :o). I'm learning so much blogging! lol "
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:34 PM:
Thank goodness! "
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:31 PM:
oups... i'm baaack! nasty typos an all! "
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:29 PM:
Zzzeeeeeeet!
(The end to our CONSULTANT problem!)
I don't care who ya are , that was funny!
"
WY wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:24 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:17 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:11 PM:
Cogito wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:07 PM:
T & C wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:13 PM:
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:31 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:14 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 6:21 PM:
I would think that 'anyone' in any workplace who notices waste or safety issues should take the initiative to at the very least initiate research simply by asking questions. You're right, it doesn't take a $25,000 consultant to realize that there is a big problem with a window that costs $10,000 to replace and as a result has cost $30,000 over the past year and a half.
I would think the Chief of Police would be the first one to raise the question. "
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:49 PM:
I could not help myself throwing in the "C" word. I do realize that a little bit of research might do the the city some good regarding this glass. Why don't we have people who can think and do research on the city payroll? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:52 PM:
Well, contrary to common belief, 'consultants' actually do have a purpose.
In this case, with the assurance that each time one of these windows breaks it's going to cost $10,000; and as G. Wiman suggests that there is a myriad of red tape to overcome, I would think this would be one of those times.
Since this is the third time in a year and a half that one of these windows has been broken, that places even more emphasis on my thought that this IS a time to do a little research. "
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:33 PM:
AWWKK, does the word "consultant" come to mind?? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:04 PM:
No argument there. I would argue, however, if other police departments are utilizing different technologies that allow for more durable windows, that should be researched and, if necessary, change the 'requirements'.
If all (or a majority of) other departments are experiencing the same types of problems with their windows, then the matter should be researched, better windows should be found and the 'requirements' should be changed.
Ignoring the problem and paying $10,000 each time a window is broken is just plain stupid. "
G. Wiman wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:58 PM:
2. The windows are made up of a laminate of tempered glass and plexiglass (plastic) to meet code rating requirements.
3. You can not use just plastic because it scratches.
4. Electricity is low voltage
5. Codes, rules, laws = $$$ "
Lodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:52 PM:
"
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:41 PM:
It's an exercise in futility. If, as part of a sentence, we charge money for destroying property and the guy/gal doesn't have the means to pay, he/she then sits in jail - costing the taxpayers even more money.
If the crook is given a bill for the damage and then is sued, he/she can ignore the bill or even file bankruptcy. Collection would be near impossible.
Lose, Lose. "
sam wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:32 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:22 PM:
Mrs. S. wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:17 PM:
Mad Dog wrote on Mar 12, 2008 2:54 PM:
zz wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:40 PM:
zz wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:38 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:37 PM:
OTH wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:32 PM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:22 PM:
That's kind of like closing the barn door after the horse is long gone.
Going along with your idea, simply place a sign on the window warning them if they even 'touch' the window they'll get the shock of their lives. Oh, and make the sign indestructible as well.
Oh, the things we do for our criminals!! "
Mad dog wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:10 PM:
Caveman wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:52 AM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:59 AM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:57 AM:
Lodian wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:55 AM:
Bob Loblaw wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:49 AM:
OTH wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:19 AM:
Second was this man checked for PCP use? This kind of strength often comes with PCP use. Bending a patrol car door? "
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:08 AM:
This is a very good question. For that price, the window should have been guaranteed never to break. They should be demanding a refund due to breach of warranty. "
carlos wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:59 AM:
boonablis wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:54 AM:
s & W 500 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:49 AM:
Maybe the City needs to contact a local glass company to bid on it! It justs seems kinda like a $5,000 congressional toilet seat! "
s & W 500 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:39 AM:
I also believe if they cause damage, and have a car with fancy rims, their car should be sold to pay for repairs.
Sure, it would be a major inconvenience, but then again.....isn't a broken window an inconvenience? "
denisdd wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:39 AM:
CLH wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:37 AM:
Bob Loblaw wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:14 AM:
2much wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:58 AM:
girard74 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 7:24 AM:
Why can't they recoup the cost of repair from these thugs? They're criminally and civilly responsible for their actions. Regardless of their 'ability to pay,' they should be slapped with additional charges for which restitution should be a requirement. Failure to pay should result in more jail time. Further failure should result in grabbing any tax refunds or reduction in public assistance, if they receive any.
Keeping the citizens on the hook for this is irresponsible. "
Comments on this story are now closed.