Front Page  »  

Prison union battles staff searches

May 15, 2011

Random staff searches that are part of an effort to curb the smuggling of cell phones into state prisons are drawing objections from the powerful union representing correctional officers. [CaliforniaWatch]

Union officials contend the monthly searches of all employees are overly intrusive and misguided. The two-year program dubbed Operation Disconnect  was enacted after 10,000 cell phones were taken from prisoners last year.

Even though fewer than 500 cell phones have been confiscated under the program, some lawmakers still suspect prison employees are the main suppliers of cell phones that are reaching inmates in ever-larger numbers.

But Joe Baumann, a chapter president with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, told California Watch the modest results suggest the program is targeting the wrong people.

“Staff are just a small part of the problem,” Baumann said. “If an employee is dirty, word gets out pretty quickly.

“There are no boundaries as far as how invasive the searches are,” he added. “People have had to take off jumpsuits, pull off vests, pull up T-shirts. They’re setting themselves up for litigation with the way they’re doing this.”

California does not routinely search staff as they enter state prisons, unlike many other states and the federal government.

Some state officials have said they would like to impose airport-like security checks on staff at all state prisons.

But Baumann told California Watch such a move would require the state to renegotiate its contract with the union and would add to the time it takes correctional officers to get from their cars, or the prison gate, to their work stations. Union members are paid for this “walk time.” Added walk time could cost the state millions, according to some analysts.

While union officials are pushing for fewer searches, lawmakers are calling for new legislation that would toughen security and sanctions.

Last month, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein appealed to the state Senate Appropriations Committee to revive a bill that would stiffen the penalties for smuggling cell phones into California prisons.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-San Jose, is sponsoring legislation that would transfer oversight for searches of prison staff to the inspector general’s office “to ensure there is a neutral third party watching these to ensure their integrity.”

Alquist told California Watch the department’s current program isn’t going far enough.


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Come on people, are you forgetting the whole point of absolute principles? Our bill of rights was written the way it was for a reason. Yes, when applied universally there will be situations in which bad people get away with things, but as a result they protect against much great potential abuses.


How can it be that almost 250 years later, when civilization is supposedly more advanced, that we cannot understand this basic idea. The REAL irony here is that people are arguing for the rule of law, while ignoring the rule of law. If you don’t LIKE the Constitution, then a mechanism has been provided for it to be changed. But until then it should serve as our written agreement, our “social contract.” Do we not have the integrity to honor our agreements? The value of the fourth amendment far exceeds the short term value of preventing what in the scheme of things is just a handful of crimes.


Here it is in case you need a refresher


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


“secure in their persons,” and “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause.” Pretty clear to me. Is it possible that there is so much cognitive dissonance that many of the same people who criticize arbitrary or heavy handed justice in Muslim countries have no problem pracitcing it here, when it suits THEIR purposes, but can’t see the similarity?


Cut their pay, increase enforcement/surveillance activities, make the penalties harsher, install cell phone jammers, but please show some respect for our most basic ideals and skip the searches.


0

Thanks for the history lesson. Here’s another one. It’s called the Patriot Act.


0

I see mkaney’s point, as well as the Patriot Act violations / TSA crap we have now.


However, it seems like we’re arguing apples against oranges. The Patriot Act, as well as the violations of the TSA (in my opinion) are limited in that they are not arbitrarily forced on people (well, the TSA part anyway, the Patriot Act is downright horrid).


If the TSA came to my door, or stopped me on the street and demanded a search, then you can see where mkaney is coming from; that said, and without putting words in his/her mouth, I think s/he is arguing about illegal search & seizure for citizens; while the story is about employees. It is a fine line, can a company (or government) potentially violate one’s Constitutional Rights as employees? Possibly, if that was established at the time of hiring (or flying, in the TSA example). Tough one to call.


I agree that the Patriot Act was the single-most liberty-destroying violation of our Rights under the Constitution than I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.


0

The Patriot Act is neither patriotic nor constitutional, and its creators and enforcers should be prosecuted for violating the civil rights of Americans.


0

” …. but please show some respect for our most basic ideals and skip the searches.” Uh, yeah, you seem to have forgotten that in issues of employment, the basic “rights” of the Constitution do not necessarily apply; a few examples if you will. 1st. Amendment, Free speech, freedom of press; if you work for an employer, can you say anything you want, at any time, to anyone? Probably not, if you want to keep your job. 2nd. Amendment, right to bear arms; does your employer restrict your ability to carry a weapon while on duty? Most likely most do not allow that. 3rd. Amendment, quartering of soldiers in private residences, most likely never going to be an issue. 4th. Amendment, as you have illustrated, “reasonable searches”; most employers who sell merchandise (retailers) do not allow employees to leave the premises with closed bags, backpacks, large purses and so on because it would be too easy for an employee to steal merchandise. Back when I was working for a retailer, all of the employees were subjected to random searches by management of their personal belongings at any time, it was a condition of employment. Many years ago I did a very short stint taking pictures for a retailer (Gemco) and all of the employees that came and went through the employee entrance carried open bags that were all looked through by security or had clear pouches that security looked over. If any employee ever felt that they did not like being searched they always have the ability to find another employer, I and think that the state run prisons should have the ability to search any employee at any time, BUT, I also agree that those searches need to monitored to make sure they are being done in a manner that is above board so that no one could ever have false evidence planted on them by the person doing the searching. Your argument that the 4th Amendment should supersede all employers’ ability to monitor the comings and goings of their employees AND what they may or may not be carrying has not been how the world has worked since at least (and this is as far back as I can remember when I entered the work force) the late sixties.


0

Your points are valid, with respect to private organizations. When you enter into a voluntary agreement with these organizations then you are entitled to waive whatever rights you want. I think that public organizations need to be held to a higher standard. As a reasonable person, I would be willing to compromise given the condition that the searches only apply to new employees who waive these rights. To allow them to search the existing employees who took the job without the expectation of the searches seems like it would be opening up a huge can of worms.


I thank you for not using “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” as an example of an exception to the first amendment. Everyone always uses that, and frankly I think making that against the law is unconstitutional. On the other hand the movie theater can kick you out, and bar you from returning, so there is already plenty of incentive against this kind of behavior.


0

So let me get this straight; if a correctional officer has worked at his job for some years before a new policy is implemented, they should be excluded from the new policies? Private companies announce and implement new policies all the time and ALL employees have the choice of ether adhering to the new policies OR finding new employment, which would make them a new employee somewhere else which would mean that they would most likely have to agree to a similar policy at their new employers. Would your logic then exclude police departments and sheriff departments from implementing mandatory drug testing for ALL employees, since (following your logic) the established staff, officers and all other employees would not be able to be subjected to the new policies? I really think you need to face up to the reality that the correctional officers are going to have to submit to the same policies that all visitors go through and be searched every single time they report to work, no exceptions.


0

What color is the sky in your world? And have you flown in that sky in the last 8 years or so? Searches are a part of life. We have little choice in the matter now days. We are scanned, patted, poked, touched, rubbed, suspected without cause. Your reality check made of rubber?


0

The fact that our rights have already been violated does not mean that any additional violations should be ok. It is NOT ok that searches are a part of everyday life. Also, we always have a choice to stand up to these violations, and if enough people did they wouldn’t occur. Have you ever heard the frog in the pot analogy? Throw a frog in hot water and it will jump right out, but put it in cold water and then slowly heat it up, and it will sit there until it cooks.


0

The constitution is not a document of absolutes – just ask every federal court and the Supreme Court each time it is argued that it is a “living document” that adapts to the times. You can’t have it both ways.


0

The Constitution is a document of limitations, pure and simple. It is there to limit the Federal Government, pure and simple. It is also considered “living” because it includes provisions for alterations via the Amendment process. One of my favorites is the 10th!


0

I know of two CO’s who were working at the CMC, a boyfriend and girfriend who both got nabbed and went to prison for selling meth to the prisoners. That occured about 5 years ago. They got caught when they got searched, case closed.


0

Simple! Its necessary, don’t like it quit and look for another job.


0

Simple solution: JAM CELLPHONES @ PENITENTIARIES. Done. Many movie theaters and restaurants employ them to great ends. You work there and need to make a call, wait for your union-mandated break (not too long, btw) and use a land-line. ALL CALLS can and should be monitored.


Don’t agree? Get another job. Of course, satellite phones would be trickier, but there are mechanisms in place to potentially “black out” geographical locals, so it might be possible to “jam” or deny calls from within areas of prisons.


Why does the government always seem to take the long and difficult road to solve a problem. Correction: government never solves a problem.


0

The prison guard union has been screwing CA taxpayers for years. They are too powerful and control too many elected officials including Gov. Brown. Their dues fund private lobbying groups to pursue more laws just to get them more members. They are helping to bankrupt the state. Each and every one of them are part of the problem whether they realize it or not. Many are corrupt in that they smuggle in cell phones and illegal drugs into the prisons as we just recently had some operation called broken badge where staff at CMC were arrested. They complain about a tough job, I’ll bet we could find plenty of people to do the job for half as much as WE pay them.


0

And some wonder why prison costs are out of control. Look no further than the union – pay to walk from their cars; and how about two or three employees getting paid overtime for the same shift when only one works the shift.


0

waaa, waaaa, waaaa – quit your crying, random searches are part of the job, if you don’t want to be searched find another job, problem solved. Wonder if any of these employees have gone through an airport lately……


0

If the confiscated 500 cell phones, you have to ask, “Did they fire 500 employees?”


0

Well, it’s possible for a single employee to smuggle more than a single cell phone at a time. So, not necessarily.


0

Fair enough!


So… did *anyone* get fired? I do not know, but am curious how this is handled by “the System.”


0

Okay, so I am curious how the conservatives will respond to this; on the one hand, conservatives seem to be very anti-union in all matters so it would seem like a no-brainer to assume that they will embrace the idea of searching of all employees at the state prisons. On the other hand, most conservatives also seem to be of the mindset that the Constitution cannot be violated by anyone, anytime for anything, and it is especially grievous if a governmental agency is doing the violating of Constitutional rights; I for one think that not only should ALL prison employees be subjected to rigorous, third party independent searches, but the employees should only be on the clock once they have stepped foot into the prison facility and could be expected to assist at any second for any occurrence that may happen. Being paid to walk from their vehicle to the prison front door? If the prison guards don’t like having the invasive searches of their persons, they can always find another job, right? Oh yeah, as far as renegotiating the contracts between the state and the prison guard union, how about “This is the way it is going to be, period. Your choice is to comply with the new policy or find new employment.”


0

Well there are two different kinds of conservatives… One of them is just a character created on the TV, and this comprises about 80%-85% of conservatives. The other type of conservative is the kind that values a set of principles and understands that a principle is not a talking point, but something which you uphold even when the result is not in your favor, because of an understanding of history and a solid belief in freedom. Personally, I like to think of myself as the latter.


As such, though I do not LIKE the prison guards union, I do not think their 4th amendment rights should be violated. Although on the surface it irks me that they would do this, and that prisoners would get their hands on the phones, when I do the full analysis I realize that frankly I don’t really care about it that much. What does it REALLY matter?


Here is the reality: The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the WORLD (more than China, more than Russia, etc..), at 2.3 million people. Over 7.2 million people are either on probation, in jail, in prison, or on parole, or 3.1% of the adult population. 50.7% of prisoners in Federal prison are there for drug offenses, while 7.9% are there for violent crime and 5.8% for property crime. About 20% of state prisoners are serving time for drug violations. The FBI says that 83 percent of drug arrests are for possession of illegal drugs alone. Police often target the same neighborhoods to make drug arrests, resulting in many people getting caught in an endless cycle that is very destructive to families, while people in other neighborhoods commit the same crimes and are never arrested, so they have the appearance of committing less violations of drug crimes.


What is a cell phone going to be used for in prison. Most likely, it will be used to talk to family, and possibly to carry out some illegal or questionable activities. Rarely, it’s going to be used for the purpose of violent crime. I’m willing to accept some risk of this to uphold my principles and values, some of which are outlined in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, we can lower the risk of this by using a THIRD party to ACTIVELY investigate incidents of smuggling and create severe penalties for these actions (including job loss), just like any other crime in the outside world. And of course, we should LOWER their salaries (and ideally, break the union).


So short answer to your question, LoL, No, I don’t support searching prison employees. I do support increasing enforcement of these laws using constitutionally acceptable methods.. We should not seek to take revenge for their ridiculous salaries by violating their rights.


See, that’s the interesting thing about liberals though, it works just the same way you’re saying it does for conservatives. Aren’t liberals supposed to support civil rights? Do they not support civil rights in this case because it’s law enforcement types and teel what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?


0

I have a family member who is a CO at CMC and one who should be searched daily! Wouldn’t be beyond the realm of probable for relative to smuggle in a few cell phones. Money is a strong driving force for many in corrections, second only to the thirst for power.


I wholeheartedly agree with the other posters here…if you are unhappy with the terms of your employment, seek other employment. And take your union with you, please.


0
1 2