meshDETECT® is pleased to announce that it has recently received a notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for U.S. Patent Application Number US16/386,248 entitled “System and method for controlling, monitoring and recording of wireless telecommunications services in penal institutions.” This is our sixth patent overall and the fifth in this family of patents.

A notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office is a written notification that a patent application has cleared internal review and is pending issuance.

This sixth patent, combined with our recently allowed blockchain patent, further expands our Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™ intellectual property portfolio and further solidifies our position as the prime innovator in the prison mobile device space. The claims in this latest patent are directed toward expanding the use and functionality of an inmate mobile communications device as well as the network systems that support its deployment and functionality.

The control systems of mobile devices used in correctional facilities are currently focused on the monitoring and recording of inmate usage and application access. However, these devices can be used to monitor more than just the individual activity and communication of the inmate in possession of the device. The devices themselves can be used to monitor the broader correctional facility environment and its detainees. This new functionality provides unique security, safety and investigative capabilities to the administrative personnel of prisons and jails.

Brian Byrne, Managing Partner of meshIP, LLC commented, “With this sixth patent, we now have intellectual property which covers six key aspects of secure wireless inmate communication systems – system, application, device management, device security, blockchain enabled wireless service and now investigative environmental monitoring. We are the only inmate communications services company with the intellectual property portfolio protecting these six core elements of the now mainstream inmate mobile device market.”

Update: The patent (US10,764,757) was issued on September 1, 2020 by the United States Patent Office. You can view the patent here: Sixth meshDETECT patent.

The post meshDETECT® Announces Notice Of Allowance From The USPTO For Sixth Patent Covering Inmate Mobile Services appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

According to the DOJ, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has posted a report detailing its findings from the Jan. 17, 2018 test of micro-jamming technology conducted at the Federal Correctional Institution at Cumberland, Maryland.

Data from the test show that the micro-jammer’s signal disrupted commercial wireless signals inside the prison cell, which meant that if cellphones were operating inside the cell, they would have been rendered inoperable. At 20 ft. and 100 ft. outside the cell, however, the micro-jammer signals did not disrupt the commercial wireless signals.

Under the Communications Act of 1934, it’s still illegal for states to jam public airwaves — only the federal government can authorize federal agencies to do it — but micro-jamming technology is starting to break down arguments against amending the law.

Telecommunication companies have long resisted any change in the law, saying jamming technology could block authorized calls outside the proscribed area.

Department officials present during the January 17, 2018, test reported that while their cellphone signals were blocked inside the cell, their cellphones were operable when standing several feet from the cell’s window. The data in the report will be used by BOP and the Department to understand the efficacy of micro-jamming, conduct further evaluation of jamming technology, and develop recommendations for strategic planning.

Here are the key findings from that report. We have highlighted some the key issues and concerns yet to be addressed as the technology is further evaluated.

Of note is finding Number 10 – With 50 to 100 micro-jamming units required per housing unit, electrical power requirements, capital costs and  detailed propagation modeling prior to installation may be significant issues in any real world deployment:

1) A contraband wireless device micro-jammer that was operated in four CMRS bands was temporarily installed and operated under an STA for a single day inside a Cumberland, Maryland FCI medium security housing unit. This micro-jammer, installed inside a utility closet, radiated its signal through a wall (concrete and steel, unspecified thickness) to a targeted prison cell on the other side. The cell was located on the ground floor. It had a single barred window to the outside. A commercially available light-reflective coating with unspecified electrical characteristics was temporarily installed on the outside of the window for the purpose of reducing the amount of jamming power that radiated outdoors.

2) The jammer consisted of a single unit containing four transmitters and associated antennas. The transmitters simultaneously produced sawtoothed FM (chirped) carrier waves that covered the CMRS bands 729–757 MHz, 869–894 MHz, 1930–1990 MHz, and 2110–2155 MHz. The jammer transmitters each produced 0.9 W per band, delivered into respective radiating antennas (combination of vertically and horizontally polarized) of +3 dBi gain. The unknown electrical characteristics of the wall through which the jammer radiated makes the unit’s ERP unknown, other than that it was less than the sum of the transmitter power and the antenna gain, that is, it was less than +32.5 dBm.

3) The unit was operated in on versus off states while emission measurements proceeded at four locations: two places inside the targeted cell and two places outdoors, adjacent to the targeted cell. The outdoor locations were 6.1 m (20 ft) and 30.5 m (100 ft) outside the building, with clear LOS to the window of the targeted prison cell.

4) NTIA performed in-band (CMRS band) and adjacent-band, OoB, spurious, and harmonic band measurements of the jammer emissions relative to the ambient CMRS signal levels at the four specified measurement locations. The results of those measurements are provided in this report.

5) Our data show that inside the targeted jamming zone (the prison cell interior), the jammer signal power levels substantially exceeded those of the CMRS signals, as summarized in Table 8 and Table 9 of this report. At the outdoor measurement locations, the jammer signals were substantially lower than indoors and the ambient CMRS signals were substantially higher in power than indoors. The range of signal power levels observed for the jammer versus the ambient CMRS signals at these locations are summarized in Table 8 and Table 9.

6) Lack of accepted quantitative engineering criteria for jammer effectiveness within a targeted jamming zone and for harmful interference outside a targeted jamming zone make it impossible for us to state, based solely on the measured jamming signal power levels and ambient CMRS signal levels, the effectiveness of the micro-jammer or its potential for causing harmful interference. The data in this report could be used for such analysis if (or when) such criteria are ever developed.

7) Noting this gap in knowledge, we recommend that quantitative engineering criteria for jammer effectiveness against contraband wireless devices (e.g., S/J thresholds) and for harmful interference to non-targeted CMRS receivers (e.g., S/I thresholds) should be environments. Theoretical analytical and numerical models should be used in conjunction with selected laboratory measurements to determine these criteria.

8) Outside the targeted CMRS bands, the only spurious signals observed from the jammer were second harmonics of the 729–757 MHz band and the 2110–2155 MHz band. These harmonics, falling in aeronautical mobile telemetry and airborne radio altimeter bands, respectively, were about 24 dB lower than the intentional emission level for the associated 750 MHz band and 7 to 15 dB lower than the intentional emission for the 2.1 GHz band.

9) The results presented in this report are idiosyncratic to the technical particulars of this jammer transmitter and the housing unit building in which its signal was radiated. Different results would be expected for any given jammer installation at any given location.

10) Aggregate emissions from the numbers of micro-jammers that would be required to provide denial-of-service coverage to entire facilities such as Cumberland FCI will represent the sum total of emission power for those groups of jammers in such facilities. Seen at a distance from the facility, the total, aggregate power for such assemblages will tend to increase in direct proportion to the number of such transmitters deployed in each facility. It has been estimated that 50 to 100 jammer transmitters like the one observed in this report might be required to cover a single, large-size housing unit in a prison facility. There are eight such medium security housing units at Cumberland FCI, for example. Assessment of the aggregation effects of multiple jammer transmitters is beyond the scope of this report. Such assessment would require either a full micro-jammer deployment at a prison facility, or else a detailed theoretical-analytical study for a given facility, including detailed propagation modeling of all of the facility’s walls, ceilings, and floors.

11) Measured characteristics in the time domain are consistent with the chirped modulation of the micro-jammer transmitter.

12) Measured emission spectra have a lobed structure that is consistent with the chirped modulation of the micro-jammer transmitter.

13) Jammer transmitter detected peak power goes as 16.7?log(receiver IF bandwidth) for any given receiver. Detected average power will go as 10?log(receiver IF bandwidth) for any receiver. See Appendix B for experimental confirmation and further discussion of this topic.

14) The total-power emission bandwidth for the jammer transmitter goes, band-by-band, according to the values of Table 2. For peak detection the power-limiting bandwidths run between 1.4 and 2.5 MHz; for average detection the power limiting bandwidths are slightly wider than the chirp bandwidth, Bc. See Appendix B for further discussion.

15) The data in this report can be used with the unit conversion information provided in Section 5.3 and the supplemental material of [8] to compare with radhaz recommendations and limits.

The post Prison Test Of Micro-Jamming Contraband Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

T-Mobile recently submitted to the FCC a study comparing Managed Access Systems (“MAS”) and precision jamming systems (micro-jamming) as potential solutions to prevent contraband phone use in correctional facilities. This study was submitted to Docket 13-111, Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities.

The study provides an overview of MAS and micro-jamming solutions examining both technical and cost considerations. The paper finds that the cost to deploy and operate the two solutions is roughly equivalent, with the cost for a MAS being less than a jammer solution in larger prisons and the jammer solution being slightly less than an MAS solution for smaller prisons.

However, the study also details a number of detrimental impacts of a jammer solution compared to an MAS solution, such as blocking legitimate use of wireless devices, including use for E911 and FirstNet, jamming other important uses, including GPS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and creating a significant potential for interference with use of wireless devices by the general public in surrounding areas.

Based on the findings of the study, any cost/benefit analysis would necessarily have to conclude that a jamming solution is not an appropriate approach to combating contraband devices in prisons given the availability of comparably priced, effective solutions that do not include the negative societal impacts associated with jammers.

It also highlights that, although both solutions prevent the use of contraband devices within correctional facilities, MAS allows officials to permit the operation of authorized devices within correctional facilities, whereas jamming solutions prevent the operation of all devices for all purposes, regardless of legitimacy. Furthermore, the report identifies additional operational benefits available for MAS, e.g, data collection, that are not available with a jamming deployment.

Regarding cost, the study finds that in a large facility, precision jamming is expected to be costlier than  a  MAS  due  to  higher  system  management  and  monitoring  costs,  as  well  as  higher  R.F. jamming head-end costs.  In a medium facility, the precision jamming system’s higher management and head-end costs are expected to be partially offset by the MAS core network costs.  In a small facility, the additional cost of the MAS core network may make it slightly more costly. The following from the report summarizes these findings:

Of particular public interest is the potential impact of micro-jamming on the ongoing deployment of FirstNet nationwide. First Responder communications may be carried on commercial cellular bands. Since a jammer does not discriminate between cellular users, first responders attempting to communicate on the affected cellular frequency bands will be blocked. This would be a problem for first responder communications within the correctional facility, as well as outside of the facility if the jammer degrades local commercial wireless networks that also carry First Responder communications.

The post Prison Micro-Jamming Study Highlights Risks appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Here is the latest summary of recent news articles regarding contraband cell phones in prisons around the world. I call these periodic round up of news items, “Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs” because this is essentially what smuggled mobile phones in jails have become – a substitute for the current wall mounted prison payphones.

In this edition, we explore some of the recent news regarding prison tablet devices and how they highlight what we have been promoting for some time now – prison payphones will be replaced by a secure prison device with cell phone capabilities that will reduce the demand for contraband cell phones. Regardless of whether the device takes the form factor of a tablet or a cell phone, wireless voice capabilities will be the key service offering in reducing contraband and recidivism.

• A spokesperson for the correctional technology company GTL, says some jails and prisons are even replacing wall phones with secure tablets that inmates can use not only to make calls, but also for education, entertainment and scheduling. “This is a trend that has only just begun to take shape,” he says. (Source)

• “This is what’s going to replace phones eventually,” the JPay founder told Yahoo Tech. “There are going to be major changes within the prison system environment because of this technology.” (Source)

• Securus Technologies announced today that distribution of its SecureView inmate tablet will top 2,000 units. “Through our initial tablet program, inmates overwhelmingly enjoy the privacy the tablet gives them for phone calls along with the games, music, and access to information such as Law Library and JobView,” (Source)

• “We believe that the Inspire devices are the future of inmate communications, education and entertainment,” said GTL’s chief marketing officer. “They improve a facility’s operational efficiencies by reducing costs and conflicts over access to phones, and have nearly limitless educational possibilities.” The company has already launched its wireless tablet technology in correctional facilities. Alameda County, Calif. currently operates one of the largest deployments of correctional wireless tablet technology in the country, according to GTL, and allows inmates to place calls of up to four hours in length directly from their jail cell. This ability to maintain communication and connection with friends and family has been linked to a reduction in recidivism. (Source)

• Companies with their exclusive focus on education and rehabilitation, are relying on economies of scale and the power of disruption to make a profit while bringing down the cost of technology and communication services. At scale, tablets can be provided at very low cost to facilities. Inmates pay no fees for the content. And there’s no technical barrier to someday replacing expensive telephone calls with much cheaper tablet-based broadband phone service. (Source)

• “At this juncture, we are not persuaded that Wi-Fi is an acceptably secure solution,” said the CEO of America Prison Data Systems in New York City, which helped San Francisco roll out 200 tablet computers at its jail last October. “That time may come down the road, but for now we know Wi-Fi is less secure.” (Source)

The post Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs – Prison Tablet Edition appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A cautionary tale for prisons contemplating shelling out millions of dollars for managed access systems to jam contraband cell phones. A prison in New Zealand has spent over $11M (US) in installation and upgrades on a cellular signal jamming system that has not prevented the ongoing use of wireless devices.

Taxpayers have forked out $17 million on cellphone jamming technology for prisons – but inmates continue to be caught with increasing numbers of contraband mobile phones.

Despite a network blocking system designed to stop Mt Eden prisoners using cellphones, footage of a “fight club” found its way out of the Auckland jail and on to social media.

Serco confirmed a cellphone was found during a full search of Mt Eden prison on Monday.

Corrections found 284 of the banned devices in the country’s prisons in the 2013-14 financial year.

The previous financial year the department found 274 cellphones unlawfully held by prisoners or brought in by visitors. It also confiscated 119 phone batteries, 128 chargers and 151 SIM cards.

Corrections’ cellphone jamming system cost a budget-blowing $10.9m to install between 2007 and 2009.  It budgeted $5.7m and nearly $6.7m has been spent since, including almost $2.3m in the first five months of last year on a systems upgrade. That followed a $1.3m spruce-up in 2011, according to records released under the Official Information Act.

Yet it does not seemed to have curbed prisoners’ efforts to smuggle them in – and they would not bother if the phones didn’t work, prison drug and alcohol counsellor Roger Brooking said.

A prison intelligence report this year showed Killer Beez founder Josh Masters was continuing to lead the street gang and arrange drug supply from his prison cell using a smuggled cellphone.

Last year convicted murderer Buddy Campbell used a cellphone to post selfies to his Facebook page while an inmate in Rimutaka prison.

Inmates had previously told Brooking they exploited loopholes, finding they could connect to 2 Degrees when it was first launched, he said.

Brooking said keeping cellphones out of prisoners’ hands to protect the public was a “valid concern”, but $17m could have been better spent on healthcare and counselling.

“I think it’s a complete and utter waste of money.”

The jammers were designed to block cellular access to the internet, Corrections said.

But it would not comment on whether mobile network bands 3G and 4G were covered, saying revealing the information would provide insight to prisoners and their associates.

Corrections national commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot said cellphones were banned to prevent prisoners organising crime, harassing victims and perverting the course of justice.

The department was constantly responding to telecommunications industry evolution in its efforts to keep the public safe.

Current prisoner Arthur Taylor contacted Fairfax to say he was concerned about the cellphone jammers’ radiation, claiming he could see 10 of the devices stationed on his block.

Asked if he thought the jammers worked, Taylor replied: “Cellphone finds were well down before the jammers arrived – due to other security measures.”

Source

The post $11M Prison Managed Access Jamming Called “A Complete And Utter Waste Of Money” appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Today I participated in the FCC’s Workshop on Inmate Calling Services Reform on the New Technologies panel to consider new and emerging forms of communications in correctional settings beyond the traditional wireline telephone call. Below is the text of my opening statement:

As this workshop is focused on inmate calling services and this panel is specifically targeted to new technologies, I would like to focus my opening comments on a new solution to the problem of contraband cell phones in prison that also provides enhanced telephone access to detainees and their families.

The very first payphone was installed in a Hartford, Connecticut bank in 1889; the first payphone in a jail was probably installed not too long after. Ironically, this same device, admittedly with very sophisticated back end controls, is still being used in prisons and jails around the world 125 years later; yet when is the last time you personally used a payphone? The reason for this? Cell phones.

As many of you may be aware, contraband cell phones are a significant issue in prisons and jails across the county, and indeed the world. Over 15,000 were confiscated in California alone in 2012. In fact, Georgia Department of Corrections Commissioner Brian Owens has stated that, “Illegal cell-phone use in Georgia prisons has developed to “epidemic” proportions and is now the system’s greatest safety threat.”

There is no doubt that the use of unrestricted cell phones in prison is a serious security risk in that some of the use is for criminal activity, however it has been shown that the vast majority of contraband cell phone use is by detainees seeking more frequent and affordable interaction with family and loved ones. Interaction that is now severely restricted by the limited number and shared use of prison payphones.

We believe that contraband cell phones are a problem of both supply and demand. Due to the demand for cell phones in prison, there is an active and highly lucrative pipeline of supply. Most prison administrations have focused on restricting the supply of contraband cell phones through detection, jamming and search. However, like the problem of drug smuggling, without addressing the demand for contraband, the problem will never be solved.

We have developed a solution, called meshDETECT, which helps to reduce the demand for contraband cell phones by siphoning off the legitimate desire for more frequent telephone access between detainees and their loved ones. meshDETECT is a secure prison cell phone solution that gives detainees highly customized cell phones with all the security and control features of prison payphones. This allows those detainees whose only desire is for legitimate, non-criminal contact with family to use wireless technology safely and securely.

By siphoning off and co-opting this non-criminal wireless usage, we significantly reduce the overall demand for contraband cell phones and therefore the profitability for those smuggling these devices. Less financial reward for cell phone smugglers changes the risk/reward equation and makes it much less appealing given the high personal and professional risk for those caught smuggling.

In addition to reducing the demand for, and therefore the supply of, contraband cell phones, enhanced access to telecommunications services has the proven, significant, additional benefits of reducing recidivism, improving detainee behavior and increasing officer safety.

Eventually all technology trends breach the prison walls. In fact, the Department of Justice recently mandated that Federal Bureau of Prison Halfway House detainees be given controlled access to cell phones to facilitate communication with potential employers and family. With meshDETECT, all deserving detainees can benefit from wireless technology, safely and securely.

The post New Technologies In Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market.

Characteristics of a Disruptive Innovation:

• Its performance attributes meet the unfulfilled needs of an emerging market’s customers. These same attributes are not initially valued by the mainstream market, which instead value different performance attributes and initially see the innovation as substandard.
• Emerging market adoption enables the innovation to increase its performance and to begin overlapping with the performance expectations of the mainstream market.
• Awareness of the innovation increases as the innovation develops, influencing change in the mainstream market’s perception of what it values.
• The change in the mainstream market’s perception of what it values enables the innovation to disrupt and replace the existing offerings in the mainstream market.

In the prison payphone industry, it is clear that the high call prices and low availability of the traditional wall phones in prisons and jails are not meeting the communication desires of detainees and their families. As a result, the demand for contraband cell phones has soared. Prison administrators, and the prison payphone companies themselves, have focused on strategies to reduce the supply of smuggled mobile phones through the deployment of expensive managed access systems, cell phone detection technologies and specially trained K9s.

However, none of these strategies address the fundamental demand (and associated corruption of guards and staff supplying the phones) of detainees seeking lower cost and more frequent access to telephone services.

In mature industries, such as the prison payphone industry, the risk for incumbents is the danger of dematuring. Dematuring happens when a stable industry with known competitors begins to be dynamic and new again.  If an industry is dematuring, the chances of getting hit with a disruptive innovation are much greater and  established players lose their hegemony while value in the industry can move to entirely new players or parts of the value chain.

An industry is in danger of dematuring if two or more of the following four things happen simultaneously:

1. customer’s core requirements change;
2. the core technologies used to produce the product or service change;
3. the number of large competitors interested in the same market is on the rise;
4. significant regulation, deregulation, or re-regulation is coming down the pike.

In the prison payphone industry we see commissary companies such as Keefe entering the market as well as new initiatives by the FCC and state regulatory commissions to lower the high cost of prison phone calls.

We are also seeing the adoption of mobility technologies such as RFID, GPS and handheld devices. The very first payphone was installed in a bank in 1889 (and probably in a jail not too long after). Yet the inmate communications service providers such as Global Tel*Link and Securus Technologies are still using this basic device (admittedly with very sophisticated back-end controls) over 120 years later!

There is no denying the pervasive and rapid adoption of wireless technologies in the the consumer market has begun to seep into prisons and jails. Add to this the desire of prison administrators to deploy on-line forms, books, MP3 players and commissary access and one quickly comes to the realization that voice communications can be an important component of this move to individualized, utilitarian and portable access devices to educate, rehabilitate and manage detainees.

With meshDETECT, we are leading the charge to disrupt the prison payphone industry by providing a secure prison cell phone solution that provides the controls and security required by prison administrators while offering enhanced communications opportunities to detainees and their families thereby reducing recidivism and the demand for contraband cell phones.

The post Why The Prison Payphone Industry Is Ripe For Disruptive Innovation appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Add yet another voice to the growing chorus of high level prison administrators who advocate for increased prisoner access to telecommunications to address a host of problems in prison. Among the reasons Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons in the UK, who heads up the prison system there, gave for this recommendation:

• The illegal use of mobile phones was widespread in most prisons and installing phones in cells would enable more calls to be monitored.
• Making inmates wait to use a phone on the landing and then asking prison officers to control the scrum as prisoners battled for five minutes to talk was a waste of scarce resources.
• In-cell phones would be monitored, with the calls paid for by prisoners and inmates restricted to calling certain pre-approved numbers only.
• I think there are some prisoners where, provided it was properly managed and supervised, it would be efficient and help people to sort themselves out.
• Our experience is that in-cell phones can have a positive impact on prisoners’ rehabilitation, not only encouraging the maintenance of family ties, but reducing the prevalence of illegal mobile phones.

We only have two questions. Where are the American prison leadership thought leaders on this approach? And why install wall phones, when you can deploy wireless prison payphones™ such as the meshDETECT secure prison cell phone solutions™ immediately and with no capital cost?

Source
 

.

The post Chief Inspector of Prisons Says Prisoners Should Be Given In-Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The use of wireless jammers to block contraband prison cell phones is one of the many supply-side initiatives being investigated and deployed in prisons around the world.

“Aggressive action,” against persons who illegally use, sell or even advertise cell phone or GPS jammers can include seizure of the device(s), fines of up to $112,500 per act and jail time. I’d call that pretty aggressive action.

Baja California Sen. Alejandro González Alcocer said that the blockage of cell phone calls in Mexican prisons is having a side effect, namely the loss of service to nearby homes.

The paper said that because La Mesa prison in Tijuana and the Mexicali penitentiary are located in urban areas, cell-phone service is not blocked there. If true, this would be the loss of a $1.6 million investment in a cell-phone blocking system.

González, a former Baja California governor, is the president of the Senate’s Justice Committee. He said corruption reigns in prisons, where guard let guns, phones, drugs and other items enter the facilities for a price.

A Los Angeles Times story published Monday about extortion in Mexico said many extortion calls are made from Mexican prisons.

A previous $1.6 million system to block cell phone calls set up in La Mesa prison system also blocked neighbors’ calls.

In Guayaquil, Ecuador, wireless phone bases were set up in a home near a prison, allowed inmates to use a wireless phone inside a prison there.

Source

The post Wireless Prison Cell Phone Jamming Blocks Neighbors’ Service appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

According to the article below about legislative initiatives in Maryland to increase the penalties for smuggling, possessing or receiving contraband cell phones in prison, “Cell phones are a lucrative form of contraband because, unlike drugs, they have a significant and perpetual resale and rental potential and value.”

With a change of mindset, cell phones can also be lucrative form of commissary revenue for prisons. By deploying a secure prison cell phone solution with all the controls and forensic capabilities of traditional prison payphones, prisons can reduce the demand for contraband cell phones while tapping into a new source of revenue that will offer welcome relief to over-stretched prison operating budgets.

Keeping cell phones and other electronic devices out of the hands of inmates and punishing those prisoners found with such contraband is the aim of two bills that have recently been the subject of committee hearings in the General Assembly.

Cell phones have been a problem at state prisons, especially in metropolitan areas.

The problem isn’t as severe at prisons located in rural areas because friends and relatives can’t simply hand cell phones through fences or toss them over the walls as easily, prison officials have said.

“Cell phones are a lucrative form of contraband because, unlike drugs, they have a significant and perpetual resale and rental potential and value,” according to a fiscal and policy note to the bills prepared by the Department of Legislative Services.

The contraband phones have been implicated in a prisoner’s arrangements for a hit on a witness in the prisoner’s murder case and in transactions involving a prison-based drug ring, officials said.

House Bill 587 increases penalties for possession of or receiving a cell phone or other device for prisoners and for delivering or attempting to deliver a cell phone to a prisoner.

Delivering the device to a prisoner would result in a stiff misdemeanor sentence of up to three years on a first offense and become a felony with a nonsuspendable five-year sentence on second offense, along with fines.

A prisoner caught with a device would face a nonsuspendable felony sentence of five years and a fine of up to five years. The sentence would be consecutive to any sentence the person is already serving.

Senate Bill 669 and the companion bill, House Bill 1086, would take away good-time credit permanently for prisoners caught with a prohibited device.

Good-time credits reduce a prisoner’s sentence for every day that he serves without infractions against prison rules.

Cell phones have become a big safety issue in prisons, Gary Maynard, the secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, has said. Cell phones smuggled into prisons can be used to coordinate illegal activities outside the prison walls and plan escapes and attacks on corrections staff and other inmates.

Two thousand cell phones have been confiscated in Maryland prisons since 2008, according to the department.

The cell phones can be found hidden anywhere, including the bodily orifices of inmates, Maynard said.

The department is using the latest technology, including cell phone-sniffing dogs, to get cell phones away from inmates. The dogs have sniffed out 500 cell phones found since 2008. The dogs also offer something of a psychological deterrent, Maynard said.

“When they walk down the hallway, the cell phones fly,” Maynard said.

The department has a $1.2 billion operating budget and supervises 22,000 inmates in 22 prisons and 70,000 individuals on probation and parole, among other duties.

Source

The post Cell Phones Are A Lucrative Form Of Contraband appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.