An investigation by the California Bureau of State Audits has revealed that Prison Health Care Services, the office overseeing prison health care reform in California, violated legal requirements and bypassed internal controls when it acquired $26.7 million in information technology (“IT”) goods and services without inviting competitive bids. The investigation, conducted by state Auditor Elaine M. Howle pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, was initiated when, shortly after his appointment in January 2008, J. Clark Kelso, the office’s new receiver, discovered that some of the IT contracts executed during his predecessor’s tenure may not have followed appropriate state laws and policies. Coincidentally, Kelso had gained familiarity with IT contracting problems of a similar nature during his tenure as California’s Chief Information officer (prior to his federal-court-appointment as Receiver). In responding to the audit, Kelso noted that, “For better or for worse,” his predecessor had devoted the bulk of the resources of the receiver’s office to addressing the very immediate problems posed by “abhorrent clinical conditions on the ground in the prisons.” Kelso acknowledged that, as a consequence, perhaps not enough attention had been paid to the administration of the state’s contracting system -- a system which he characterized as ...

by Matt Clarke

A review conducted by a Houston newspaper concluded that a large quantity and variety of contraband is still being smuggled into Texas prisons by state prison guards, and those caught smuggling rarely receive harsh punishment.

Between 2003 and 2008, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) brought contraband-related disciplinary action against 263 employees. Of those, 75% received probation, 35 were fired and 26 received no punishment. The only employee who was criminally prosecuted and convicted did not receive prison time.

Contraband smuggling is “the biggest security problem the prisons face,” according to John Moriarty, TDCJ’s Inspector General. “One corrupt employee can really compromise the security of the operation tremendously ... they can keep bringing and bringing stuff in.”

That issue made headlines after a guard allegedly smuggled a cell phone onto death row and condemned prisoner Richard Lee Tabler used it to place harassing calls to state Senator John Whitmire. The resulting political brouhaha led to a system-wide 10-day shakedown in October 2008, plus the implementation of new procedures for searching all persons entering TDCJ facilities, including guards. [See: PLN, March 2009, p.29].

Nonetheless, more than 200 cell phones were discovered in state prisons in the five ...

by David M. Reutter

Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) has issued a report that finds that oversight of the state’s private prisons has strengthened under the Department of Management Services (DMS) but significant weakness still abounds.

The Florida Legislature authorized private prisons in 1989. When the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) had not contracted for any privatization by 1993, the Legislature established the Correctional Privatization Commission to realize the savings that are ballyhooed by privatization advocates. As PLN previously reported, the Commission’s first executive director was fined and fired for ethics violations and the second imprisoned for embezzlement of state funds.

That prompted the legislature to abolish the Commission and place responsibility for private prison contracting and oversight under the charge of DMS. Of the 19 states to have private prisons, only Florida places administrative responsibility for private prisons outside of its prison agency or a prison commission overseeing both public and private prison systems.

As of October 1, 2008, Florida’s six private prisons housed 7,725 of the state’s 99,048 prisoners at an approximate annual cost of $133 million. By Florida law, private prisons must save 7% of the cost of operating a comparable state ...

On July 1, 2008, an Illinois Court of Appeals held that a prisoner had standing to bring a claim against Ameritech for consumer fraud. Johnnie Flournoy, an Illinois state prisoner at the Joliet Correctional Center, filed suit against Ameritech in state court alleging the company had “deliberately terminated his collect calls prematurely,” forcing him to call the same party again.

As a consequence, his family members were charged multiple surcharges and fees for accepting his collect calls. Furthermore, because Flournoy sent his mother money to pay for the calls he made, he suffered damages personally. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding that Flournoy had stated a cause of action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. In doing so, it “settled a question of fact – did Flournoy sufficiently allege that he suffered actual damages as a result of Ameritech’s alleged deceptive practices.” See: Flournoy v. Ameritech, 351 Ill.App.3d 583 (Ill.App.Ct. 3d Dist. 2004), appeal denied. [PLN, Dec. 2004, p.31].

Upon remand, the trial court granted Ameritech’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing to pursue a consumer fraud case. Flournoy appealed. The Court of Appeals ...

by John E. Dannenberg

The Nebraska Court of Appeals has upheld administrative regulation 205.3 (AR 205.3) of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS), which restricts prisoner phone calls to land-line, nonconference-call recipients and authorizes tape-recording of all non-attorney phone calls. In reversing an earlier district court injunction enjoining AR 205.3, the appellate court found that DCS’s new telephone system was the least restrictive means of accomplishing DCS’s goals of prison safety and security, and did not infringe upon prisoners’ constitutional rights.

In August 1997, Barry McCroy and other Nebraska prisoners sued DCS in state district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for both injunctive relief and damages in regard to DCS’s new restrictive telephone program, the Inmate Calling System (IMS). The IMS established calling schedules and tape recording procedures for all prison phone calls except confidential attorney-client calls (defined as calls to court clerks, bailiffs and bar attorneys). Three-way calls, conference calls and call forwarding were prohibited. Additionally, the IMS limited prisoners to 20 pre-approved numbers and excluded all calls to cell phones, pagers, 800/900 numbers, 411 information numbers, state senators and the media.

In October 1997, the district court entered an injunction barring implementation of the IMS as it ...

The State of Connecticut in the early 1980s agreed to settle a suit over the overcrowding at the Somers Correctional Facility.

Joseph Letezeio individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated at Somers sued the State of Connecticut alleging that the overcrowding and other conditions at Somers violated the Eighth Amendment.

The State settled the suit agreeing to, among other things, eliminate dormitory housing in a former card room, cap housing in each cell to no more than two prisoners, provide indoor and outdoor recreation, one telephone call per week, improved visitation, routine sick call, and the creation of an admission and orientation program. The plaintiffs were represented by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union. See: Letezeio v. Manson, USDC, D. Conn., No. H82-252.

When a prisoner consents to the monitoring of calls over a jailhouse telephone, no Fourth Amendment violation exists if the government records calls made to an attorney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided June 30, 2008.

Scott Holyoke called Lawrence Novak, an attorney, seeking his services in getting some prior convictions removed from his record. Holyoke’s calls were monitored, however. During one of his calls, Holyoke asked Novak to get his convictions vacated by filing false affidavits.

Police heard this call and approached Holyoke and asked him to set up Novak. Holyoke agreed. Novak was later indicted for obstructing justice and money laundering after he agreed to launder $60,000 from drug trafficking activity.

The district court suppressed the phone calls, agreeing with Novak that the recording violated the Fourth Amendment. The First Circuit reversed. “Because Holyoke consented to monitoring of his calls, those calls…can be introduced into evidence consistently with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment,” the court held. See: United States v. Novak, 531 F.3d 99 (1st Cir. 2008).

September 1, 2009

Corrections Policy Examiner
Michael Hamden


The Scam: "Give me your money and you can talk to your kid." That may sound like a line from a 1950's Jimmy Cagney gangster movie. But in essence, that is what pay telephone companies are saying every day to millions of people who want to speak with an incarcerated family member. It's a racket, see? Here's how it works.

Correctional agencies request bids for prison phone services. They are not looking for the least expensive bid or the best possible service. Instead, they choose between offers of payment from the telephone companies. These payments, known in the industry as "commissions," are promised in exchange for the exclusive right to provide telephone services. Monopolies often engage in abusive practices, and that is the case here. Rates are as much as 5 times higher than the cost of a pay-phone call outside prison, and the cost of this exploitation is borne by families that are among the least able to afford it.

"Hey, ya' bum! Whata'bout my phone call?"

In jails, people who have just been booked usually ask to use a telephone so they can arrange for bail. That's good for government ...

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has agreed to settle another lawsuit brought by PLN contributing writer, Brandon Sample.The settlement resolves several disputes between Sample and the BOP. Sample had complained, for instance, that the call prompt announced over the prisoner telephone systems requiring called parties to push the number five before being connected violated his First Amendment rights.

Sample had attempted to contact various government agencies via telephone, but the agencies could not accept his calls because they were answered by an automated telephone answering system (ATAS). ATASs are incapable of pushing “5.” The BOP agreed to settle the push “5” issue by allowing Sample to contact several different pre-designated government agencies using a normal telephone.

The BOP also agreed to resolve Sample’s claim that the BOP was in noncompliance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Under § 552(a)(2), government agencies are required to post various records on the Internet in their FOIA public reading room. Records that are required to be posted include “final opinions…made in the adjudication of cases.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(A).

Sample alleged that each grievance response the BOP issued constituted a “final opinion made in the adjudication of a ...

by John E. Dannenberg

The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a class-action suit brought by families and friends of prisoners who challenged prison telephone contracts as monopolistic and prison phone rates as oppressive. The appellate court held that it was not illegal for the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Marion County Sheriff to enter into monopolistic contracts, and that the phone rates were reasonable.

Chanelle Alexander and family members, friends and attorneys of prisoners who paid for collect calls from IDOC facilities and the Marion County Jail filed suit to stop excessive billings from the sole-source telephone service providers. They claimed that state law prohibited such sole-source contracts, and that the excessive phone rates were the result of this state-sponsored monopoly.

In 1995, the Marion County Sheriff contracted with Ameritech for a two-year renewable contract wherein the company would install and maintain at least 222 prisoner phones at no cost. In return, Ameritech guaranteed the county 40% of gross revenues from the phones plus a signing bonus of $524,000. The payments were to be placed in the Marion County Jail Commissary Trust. There were no contractual limits placed on phone rates.

Separately, the IDOC contracted with AT&T ...