The challenge in reducing prison contraband, whether it is smuggled cell phones or drugs, is addressing not only the supply, but the demand for the contraband. As noted in the article below, “spending on substance abuse programs has fallen to $9 million from $11 million in the past two years. The demand is there, the need is there and we’re seeing much of that need being unmet.”

Just as there are substance abuse programs in prison to reduce the demand for drugs, there must be a demand-side strategy to address the desire for contraband cell phones. With meshDETECT, the prisoner desire for more communication with family is met in a secure and compliant manner.

Cocaine, alcohol, explosives, knives and handcuff keys are part of the haul at federal prisons as officials across the country struggle with a rising tide of contraband.

Between 2007 and 2011, the amounts of drugs, intoxicants, weapons and other unauthorized items confiscated by prison staff has steadily risen, in some cases by more than 170 per cent, according to documents obtained by the Star.

The number of seizures of intoxicants, for example — LSD, THC, amphetamines and steroids, to name just a few — rose to 1,779 in 2010-11, up from 1,295 three years earlier.

Similarly, the number of seizures of weapons, including razor blades, homemade knives, firearms, explosives and pipes, rose by 22 per cent to 900 over the same period.

Perhaps most striking is the surge in seizures of other unauthorized items, such as cellphones, tattoo-making materials, lock picks and rope, from 991 to 2,697.

What the numbers don’t say is whether the amount of contraband items smuggled into prisons is increasing or whether a recent push by the government to intercept these materials is paying off.

“I suspect that detection is getting better, so you do see an increase in seizures,” said Howard Sapers, Canada’s Correctional Investigator. “What we really don’t know is whether drug use inside prisons is up or down, whether the presence of weapons is greater or lesser than it used to be.”

In August 2008, the federal government pledged $122 million over five years in an effort to eliminate drugs from federal prisons. The funding went toward purchasing additional security equipment, such as drug ion scanners and X-ray machines, increasing the number of drug-detecting dog teams, and was intended to improve security intelligence both inside and outside prisons.

Among the goals, according to the government, are more successful rehabilitations and a safer system for guards and the country’s 14,000 federal inmates.

The Star also asked CSC for the number of employees disciplined for bringing contraband items into prison, but the agency said it did not have any such records. However, last September, Don Head, commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada, told a parliamentary committee that it had dismissed 12 staff members that year for smuggling contraband into prisons.

Inmates caught with contraband material face a variety of sanctions, depending on the nature and seriousness of the transgression. Disciplinary measures include warnings, loss of privileges, an order to make restitution, fines, performance of extra duties, segregation from other inmates and, in some cases, the laying of criminal charges.

NDP public safety critic Jasbir Sandhu notes that while seizures of drugs appear to be increasing, the percentage of offenders testing positive for illegal drugs in CSC’s own random urinalysis tests has remained steady at around seven per cent since 2007-08.

“They’re spending $122 million to stop drugs coming in, but that hasn’t happened because the urinalysis results haven’t changed,” Sandhu said. “The benefit to the taxpayer has been zero.”

Jason Godin, regional president of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, which represents 6,800 federal officers, says tracking down contraband has become increasingly challenging as inmates develop new and creative ways to smuggle items inside.

“We’ve seen everything from things inside stuffed animals, tennis balls and drugs tied onto arrows and shot into the yard with a crossbow,” Godin said.

He added that offender profiles have changed over the last 15 years, with a larger percentage of inmates more likely to be affiliated with gangs. The relationships developed with other gang members on the outside have resulted in greater complexity when it comes to smuggling contraband, he said.

While there is little debate over the need to have good detection of contraband materials, Sapers said he is alarmed by the government’s recent shift away from treatment programs in favour of beefed-up security measures.

“We’ve been encouraging the service to increase its programming and treatment capacity, and often these are linked to addiction and mental health,” Sapers said.

He noted that spending on substance abuse programs has fallen to $9 million from $11 million in the past two years.

“The demand is there, the need is there and we’re seeing much of that need being unmet.”

CSC could not provide the Star with budget expenditures for 2010-11 due to “temporary technical issues,” but a 2010 overview of the agency pegs total corrections expenditures 2008-09 at $2.28 billion, up nearly 40 per cent since 2004-05. The average cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated rose from $87,919 to $109,699.

Source

The post Contraband Prison Cell Phones On The Rise In Canada appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An article from the Cayman Islands regarding the problem of detecting contraband cell phones and SIM cards in prison. The meshDETECT secure cell phone solution does not use SIM cards to avoid the problem of prisoners sharing a phone by swapping SIM cards.

A new machine acquired by HMP Northward will help in the fight to stop inmates getting access to mobile phones and SIM cards, which officials believe may be contributing to the current surge in violent gang killings. Prison authorities have admitted for some time that cell phone use by inmates is a significant problem. The governor revealed Friday that police suspect the ‘orders’ for some of the recent killings could have come from inside the prison walls via cell phones. The new BOSS II, which was bought by HMP Northward using a donation from the FCO, is a hyper-sensitive, non-invasive metal detector that can pinpoint where on the body a visitor or inmate could be hiding something as small as a SIM card.

While regular body scanners may pick up cell phones — though as phones get smaller and slimmer they too become harder to detect — SIM cards are particularly difficult for prison officers to find as they are much easier to hide. With SIM cards in their possession, inmates can share just one phone inside the prison, enabling them to not only intimidate witnesses, carry on illegal businesses such as drug trading and keep in touch with gang members, but also, as authorities now believe, they can use the cards and cell phones to order hits on people outside the prison from literally inside their cells.

The chair, which cost $7,500, was unveiled in the visitor’s room at Northward Prison on Friday morning when Governor Duncan Taylor explained that it works a little like an airport scanner. He said it would make it much more difficult for the cards and phones to be smuggled into the prison and improve security.

“We face a challenge with prisoners who are bringing contraband, mobile phones and SIM cards into the prison, which allows them to make inappropriate contact with people on the outside,” the governor said as he revealed the concerns that the latest frightening surge in violence may have connections to the prison.

“Cayman is in a very difficult place at the moment following five murders in eight days,” the governor said on Friday morning when the chair was unveiled to the media. “We believe that there is some contact between the criminals in Northward and some of the people involved in these crimes in the last few days.”

Dwight Scott, the prison director, said that sweeps were being conducted throughout HMP Northward to try and locate the phones and cards. He said that this issue was one of the biggest headaches in all corrections facilities and they were doing everything they could to try and find them. He explained that phones enable people in prison to continue their criminality, from ordering murders to carrying on their drugs businesses. Although the technology to detect phone signals does existy, HMP Northward does not have access to it.

The chair, Scott said, was only one of the tools that the prison continued to use to tighten security and he explained that it would also help prevent weapons getting inside the prison walls. Although the prison does not have a reputation for excessive violence or a particular problem with weapons, Scott said it was important to remain vigilant. The director pointed out that the chair will also help to detect weapons, such as prison-made knifes, known as shanks, or razor blades.

During a demonstration of the sensitivity of the chair, it was able to detect a paper clip in the mouth of one of the prison officers. Scott said the chair was also mobile, meaning it can be used to scan new inmates, visitors, staff, prisoners after they have had contact with visitors, or when they are returning from court, and it could also be used for spot check searches.

Source

The post Prison Fights ‘Cell’ Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This is an excerpt from the FBI report “Cell Phones as Prison Contraband,” from the July 2010 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

It paints a compelling picture of the problems of contraband cell phones in prisons. The first reaction to a seemingly uncontrollable situation is often an extreme or complicated approach. In the case of contraband prison cell phones, it appears easiest to simply jam and block signals. The success of this approach is limited at best, and the ongoing expense and complexity of managing, administering, and upgrading systems introduces one thing that no one wants – more expense. meshDETECT offers an alternative solution. One that benefits detainees, families, guards, prisons and the state.

An inmate escaped from a Kansas prison allegedly with the aid of a phone smuggled in by an accomplice. In Texas, a death row inmate charged with killing four persons, including two teenage girls, allegedly used a wireless phone from within the prison to threaten a prominent state senator and his family. These incidents serve as just two examples where individuals used cell phones to facilitate criminal acts from within a correctional institution.

The authors have examined the real and potential dangers that inmate wireless phone possession poses not only to prison and jail personnel and other prisoners but to the community at large. Their study focused particularly on the methods of concealment, as well as prevention strategies, including detection and proposed legislation, to minimize the harm of cell phone use by inmates.

Possession by Prisoners
A study of Kentucky correctional personnel found that 92.2 percent believed that inmates should have telephone privileges. At least one court has suggested that prisoners may have a right to access. However, it is important to acknowledge that this right has limitations. Restrictions may not only limit the number of persons an inmate may call but dictate that none of the individuals have a criminal record. As a general matter, correctional staff may monitor inmate calls when “pursuant to a policy statement” and when prisoners receive “reasonable notice that monitoring of telephone conversations might occur” (although a different analysis likely would apply to legal communications).

Finally, authorities may impose restrictions on telephone use based on the security level in which an inmate is housed. Even despite such limitations, inmate telephone use sometimes may facilitate criminal activity. A recent report concluded that “a significant number of inmates use prison telephones to commit serious crimes.” While prisoners may use their cell phones for benign purposes, such as maintaining contact with family and friends, the devices also may provide inmates with an avenue for conducting criminal activity without concerns about the restrictions imposed on landline telephone use.

Seriousness of the Problem
Cell phones represent the latest concern in authorities’ constant struggle against prison and jail contraband. Inmates smuggle them into facilities in increasing numbers. For example, in 2008, approximately 2,800 devices were confiscated by California officials alone. During a massive search in a Texas institution, authorities recovered approximately 300 wireless phones, including 18 from death row inmates.

The problem of smuggled devices in prisons occurs worldwide. Authorities in India confiscated more than 600 cell phones in a Gujarat facility. Guards at the Danilio Pinherio prison in Brazil discovered that inmates used pigeons to fly phones and related parts in and out of the institution; prisoners there allegedly have used wireless phones to coordinate a wave of assaults on law enforcement agencies, banks, and public buses, killing hundreds of people.

One Maryland official stated, “Cell phones are perhaps the worst type of contraband because, in most cases, they provide an easy, continuing connection back to the inmate’s life on the street—the type of lifestyle that led to them being incarcerated.”13 Prisoners have used them to, for example, intimidate and threaten witnesses; transmit photographs, including offensive pictures sent to victims; orchestrate crimes, such as gang activity; coordinate escapes; bribe prison officers; order retaliation against other inmates; text other prisoners; gain access to the Internet; and create security breaches.

Concealment by Inmates
Prisoners have creative methods of concealing cell phones and related contraband, such as subscriber identity module (SIM) cards used to store phone numbers and text messages. For instance, authorities have found devices hidden under mattresses; concealed by wrist watches; and contained inside body cavities, rice and cereal containers, false bottoms of boxes, hollowed out books, toilets, televisions, radios, light fixtures, portable fans, socks, and duffle bags. Visitors and employees also smuggle wireless phones and related paraphernalia into prisons. In some cases, staff members have accepted bribes, usually for several hundred dollars per device, from inmates to sneak cell phones into facilities. For example, one correctional officer reported earning more than $100,000 by charging prisoners $100 to $400 per device. Smuggled wireless phones also provide a source of additional income to inmates who charge other prisoners up to $50 for each call placed.

Detection by Authorities
As a result of the influx of wireless phones within facilities, officials have taken aggressive measures to detect them. Authorities have implemented not only random cell inspections but perimeter searches. In one case, officials discovered wireless devices outside a perimeter fence and determined that a makeshift launcher catapulted them over the prison wall. Some institutions have used traditional security measures, such as metal detectors; X-ray technology; and routine searches of staff, visitors, and contractors, to detect cell phones. Officials also have used body orifice security scanner (BOSS) systems to detect cell phones and parts concealed in body cavities.

An innovative proactive approach to detection is the use of dogs. For instance, as part of their crackdown on cell phone possession by inmates, the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services uses canines trained specifically to detect wireless devices, including even the small SIM cards, which is important because prisoners often store them separately, “minimizing the loss in case a phone is seized.” The use of dogs to sniff out cell phones has proved quite successful. According to one report, “In fiscal year 2008, 849 cell phones were found within the facility or intercepted outside of the facility on prison grounds at 24 facilities….”

Some agencies have begun to use electronic cell phone detection systems, which can indicate to security staff when a device is in use in a facility. Some such systems rely on wireless sensors to detect phone signals. Others may be hardwired within a facility. Although effective, use of these technologies requires start-up costs.

Jamming and Legal Considerations
“Jamming is a radio frequency (RF) technology used to disrupt cell phone signals.” Along with denial of service and passive interception, this may seem like an attractive possibility; however, it is illegal unless done pursuant to specific authorization. As noted in section 333 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Act of 1934, “[N]o person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications.” The penalty specified for jamming is a maximum fine of $11,000 per day and the potential for criminal prosecution. Some states, as well as Washington, D.C., have requested that the FCC revisit its anti-jamming policy.

Currently, Congress is examining the possibility of permitting the proactive use of jamming to prevent inmates’ use of cellphones in correctional institutions. One bill under consideration would allow “state governors or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to petition the FCC to permit mobile jamming in prisons.” Despite successful testing of jamming technology that blocked only the targeted signals in prison settings around the globe, inadvertent interference with legitimate cell phone service does pose a real concern. For instance, jamming at one institution disabled cell phone service to approximately 200,000 nearby residents. Also important to consider is how jamming might interfere with public safety. For instance, jamming technology could affect police radio and cell phone reception in the event of an emergency response or the transmission of vital information. In one situation, a school system jammer used to prevent students from using their cell phones during class incapacitated a sheriff’s cross-band repeater. This posed a danger during an active SWAT team activity. Additionally, of course, the same technology that prohibits inmates from using wireless phones also would prevent correctional personnel from doing the same for routine business or in the event of an emergency.

Additional Concerns
Some inmates prefer wireless phones so they can bypass telephone monitoring systems within the prison. Cell phones provide them a means of private communication with minimal oversight by authorities. Further, inmates argue that wireless phones are less expensive than pay phones for maintaining contact with family. Additionally, according to some defense attorneys, the use of cell phones merely is a method for prisoners to communicate with family members who live in locations where pay phones do not currently exist. It is unlikely that such a claim would be sustained in court, as cell phone restrictions more likely would be viewed as “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” A more practical concern to correctional administrators is financial, as inmate telephone use generates agency revenue. For instance, a 1995 study found that such income totaled $96.4 million for 31 state correctional agencies.

Recommendations
This problem likely will not disappear in the near future. However, effective prevention strategies and workable policies can help minimize it. First, correctional institutions need to continue their vigilance toward detection of smuggling and possession of the devices by prisoners, using both traditional and innovative methods (e.g., canines). Second, if jamming becomes legal, research on the usage of these technologies should continue. Third, jurisdictions should consider criminalizing inmate cell phone possession, rather than treating it as ordinary contraband; officials in California have introduced such a bill. Finally, authorities should encourage the use of technology as a prevention and detection strategy for cell phones in prisons.

Conclusion
At one time, drugs and tobacco served as the contraband of choice by prisoners. Now, wireless phones are becoming popular. Correctional personnel must maintain excellent intelligence gathering and uphold effective practices to minimize the dangers posed by inmate wireless phone possession. Prisoners have smuggled cell phones into institutions and used them for various purposes, some illegal and even dangerous. However, the authors feel that authorities can implement effective strategies that can successfully minimize the problem and help protect jail and prison personnel, other inmates, and the public.

The post Cell Phones as Prison Contraband appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.