Welcome to the last issue of PLN for 2013. As the year closes we can look back and see we have accomplished a great deal, including expanding the magazine to 64 pages, successfully urging the FCC to cap the cost of interstate prison phone calls, and prevailing in censorship and public records lawsuits. We also moved our office to Florida from Vermont and will soon be reopening a PLN office in Seattle, Washington.

All of this does not happen on its own; it depends on help and support from our readers and supporters like you. If you can afford to make a donation to PLN or the Human Rights Defense Center, PLN’s parent non-profit organization, please do so. Your support will help us advocate on behalf of prisoners, work to reform the criminal justice system, litigate to protect basic First Amendment rights and much more. What goes around, comes around. For those interested in the full depth and breadth of what PLN and HRDC do, please review our annual reports at: www.prisonlegalnews.org/annualreports.aspx. If you don’t have access to the Internet, send us 8 new first-class stamps and request our 2012 annual report, and we’ll mail you a copy.

This month’s ...

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a statute prohibiting prisoners from possessing escape devices does not encompass possession of a contraband cell phone.

Pursuant to NRS 212.093(1), prisoners are prohibited from having “any key, picklock, bolt cutters, wire cutters, saw, digging tool, rope, ladder, hook or any other tool or item adapted, designed or commonly used for the purpose of escaping.”

Pershing County jail prisoner Nickolas Mark Andrews was charged with violating NRS 212.093(1) when guards discovered a cell phone hidden in a box under his bunk. The trial court agreed with Andrews, however, that the statute does not prohibit cell phone possession. The charge was dismissed and the state appealed.

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the statute’s plain language “does not prohibit the possession of cell phones.” Therefore, the district court had correctly dismissed the charge against Andrews. Nevertheless, the state argued “that the phrase ‘designed or commonly used for the purpose of escaping’ brings cell phones within the scope of the statute.”

Rejecting this “overambitious reading,” the Court held it is “clear that the aim of the statute is to prohibit the possession of devices used to forcibly break out of, or physically flee from, ...

Following a decade of delays, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards, promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice, went into effect in August 2013. [See: PLN, September 2013, p.1].

One of the PREA rules, 115.51, states that correctional agencies “shall provide multiple internal ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to such incidents.” The rule further specifies that “Staff shall accept reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and shall promptly document any verbal reports.”

Although PREA does not require prisons and jails to establish internal telephone hotlines for prisoners to report sexual abuse and harassment, many have done so. When the PREA standards were being developed, some prisoners’ rights advocates expressed concerns that prisoners would not have faith in the hotlines, or be willing to use them, unless they provided true anonymity.

Most of the PREA hotlines in prisons and jails profess to accept anonymous reports, in that prisoners are not required to identify themselves or enter their phone PIN number to access the hotline to report ...

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has awarded a six-year system-wide telephone contract to Global Tel*Link (GTL), which requires the company to install equipment capable of blocking signals from contraband cell phones at the state’s 33 adult correctional facilities. In exchange for installing the equipment, as well as shouldering operational costs, GTL will receive all revenue generated from the Inmate/Ward Telephone System less an annual “administration fee” of $800,000.

The installation costs of the cell phone blocking system, called a managed access system, are estimated to be between $16.5 million and $33 million. To compensate for that expense, the revenue generated from prison phone services necessarily must be much greater. And it is, for two related reasons.

First, in most cases CDCR prisoners must use the prison phone system to make calls, as GTL has a monopoly on in-prison phone services. Second, because the rates charged for prison calls are not subject to the moderating forces of competition, they are much higher than non-prison phone rates. A typical intrastate (in-state) 15-minute call from a CDCR facility costs up to $2.00, while a 15-minute interstate (long distance) call costs $6.60. [See: PLN, April 2011, p.16]. Interstate rates are now ...

On August 9, 2013, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn presided over a historic vote by the Commission to reform the prison phone industry, and while doing so publicly acknowledged family members and prisoners’ rights organizations that had influenced the FCC to finally make the “Wright” decision.

Thirteen years ago, the Center for Constitutional Rights co-counseled with the D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project and several other attorneys to file a lawsuit, Wright v. Corrections Corporation of America, U.S.D.C. (D. DC), Case No. 1:00-cv-00293-GK, challenging an exclusive prison phone contract that resulted in high phone rates. The district court referred the case to the FCC, and an initial petition for rulemaking, called the “Wright petition,” was filed in 2003 by lawyers from the D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project and attorneys Steve Seliger and Frank Krogh. An alternative petition for rulemaking was submitted in 2007, seeking to cap prison phone rates at $.20/minute for debit calls and $.25/minute for collect calls. Attorney Lee Petro with the law firm of Drinker Biddle joined the case in 2009.

The lawsuit and subsequent FCC petition resulted after Martha Wright, an 87-year-old blind grandmother who lives in the District of Columbia, sought to lower the ...

It has been over 10 years since Martha Wright, a grandmother who filed a lawsuit challenging the high cost of prison phone calls, began trying to reform the prison telecom industry. Now, with more support than ever, advocates are asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make the "Wright" decision.

On July 10, 2013, the FCC held its first-ever workshop on prison phone rates at the agency's headquarters in Washington, DC. In front of a room packed with prison phone justice supporters, and with more than 170 watching the proceeding online, the case was firmly made: The current prison phone industry model of paying "commission" kickbacks to government agencies to secure monopoly contracts results in unacceptably high phone rates that negatively impact prisoners, their families and our communities. Thus, there is a compelling need for reform of the prison telephone industry, including a cap on the cost of prison phone calls.

The FCC workshop was led by Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn and included remarks by dignitaries such as U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush from Illinois and District of Columbia Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. The day-long event included three panel presentations by advocates for prison phone reform, officials with prison phone ...

In June 2012 we posted the first advertisement for the Campaign for Prison Phone Justice in Prison Legal News. We asked you, our readers, to send letters to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) describing how you and your families have been impacted by the high cost of prison telephone calls.

One year later, close to 100,000 people and organizations have submitted comments or signed on to petitions filed with the FCC asking the Commission to act on the "Wright Petition" to lower the cost of interstate prison phone calls.

Between July 2012 and June 2013, prisoners submitted or signed on to 1,754 letters or comments filed with the FCC regarding the Wright Petition.* It is clear that many prisoners have been hard at work, organizing to inundate the FCC with stories of unfair phone rates, financial hardship and the struggle to maintain connections with their families.

Pennsylvania prisoners contributed more than 540 letters to the FCC, making up almost a third of the total prisoner filings. Pennsylvania was the only state where more than one letter was submitted per 100 prisoners statewide.

The most filings of any prison or jail came from SCI-Huntingdon in Huntingdon, PA, with 174 letters submitted ...

In the wake of a disturbance which left twelve people injured at Hancock State Prison, Georgia prison officials are suggesting that prisoners used cell phones to plan and coordinate the uprising.

On November 25, 2011, while prisoners in one area of Hancock set fire to the prison, prisoners in another area were engaged in multiple fights. One prisoner was stabbed.

Corrections Commissioner Brian Owens said afterward, "We believe the activity was synchronized and coordinated through illegal cell phones."

The prison remained on 24-hour lockdown for at least two weeks after the disturbance.

Commissioner Owens suggested that prisoners set fires, broke TV sets, and entered Hancock's administration building, all in a clever diversionary effort to delay staff from discovering and stopping the fights.

According to Owens, prisoners' use of cell phones is at an "epidemic level." Moreover, in his view, their use is not about staying in touch with family and friends. "Cell phones in prison aren't about calling grandma for Thanksgiving," he opined. Rather, "it's about power, it's about money, and often times it's about gangs."

That cell phones were used by prisoners at Hancock on November 25, 2011, seems to be an unavoidable conclusion. The source for this article, ...

After heated hearings and postponement, on December 12, 2012, the Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) voted to lower the cost of phone calls made from Louisiana prisons and jails by cutting the rates of most calls by 25% and prohibiting costly surcharges. [See: PLN, Jan. 2013, p.14; Feb. 2012, p.36]. The LPSC’s order was a victory for 40,000 Louisiana prisoners and their loved ones. Unfortunately, however, some of the policy changes have been postponed.

At its December hearing, the LPSC decided that telecom companies must lower the rates of most prison and jail phone calls by 25%, starting whenever their current contracts ended or in 2014. The rate reduction did not apply to all calls, but only to calls made by prisoners to family members, clergy, legal aid organizations and certain government agencies.

The part of the LPSC’s order ending unauthorized prison phone surcharges went into effect on February 28, 2013. At that time the telecom companies that contract with Louisiana prisons and jails were supposed to have stopped charging the extra fees, such as fees to set up phone accounts and issue refunds on unused account balances. The LPSC, however, learned that four companies were acting in violation of ...

by Mike Brodheim and Alex Friedmann

WITH SEVEN FACILITIES THAT HOUSE from 15,000 to 18,000 prisoners, Los Angeles County’s jail system is the nation’s largest – and, arguably, among the most dangerous in terms of staff-on-prisoner violence.

The jail system, operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), is facing an investigation by the FBI into allegations of corruption and abuse, as well as multiple lawsuits. Sheriff Leroy David “Lee” Baca, 70, has committed to numerous reforms following a report and recommendations by the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence, but people familiar with long-standing problems in the county’s jails remain skeptical.

A Continuing Culture of Violence

THE LASD JAIL SYSTEM HAS BEEN UNDER federal court oversight since the 1970s when, following a 17-day trial, an injunction was issued that ordered the county to improve jail conditions – including overcrowding, inadequate exercise, and lack of clean clothing and telephone access. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had initially sued Los Angeles County in 1975, alleging that overcrowded conditions, systematic abuse of prisoners by sheriff’s deputies and inadequate medical care violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. See: Rutherford v. Baca, U.S.D.C. (C.D. Cal.), Case No. CV 75-04111 ...