Most people are familiar with Crime Stoppers, the “snitch line” for individuals with information about crimes. Successful tips can result in benefits to the tipster – which can take the form of cash, leniency with a new case or a time cut if the tipster is already in prison. Not surprisingly, Crime Stoppers receives a lot of calls from prisoners.

Rather than calling to report crimes, though, some crafty South Carolina state prisoners figured out a way to use the Crime Stoppers phone line to make personal calls, racking up some $7,000 in charges at Crime Stoppers’ expense, according to a July 2011 news report. The toll-free tip line was billed for 4,000 calls in one month, apparently after prisoners used the Crime Stoppers phone number as a third-party billing source for long distance calls.

“Some inmates are very resourceful and have a lot of time on their hands,” said Joey Hudson, President of Greenville County Crime Stoppers. “We know definitively the calls were made from corrections institutes in the Pee Dee area,” he stated. “We are still working to see if we can trace the calls back to a specific inmate or inmates.”

Telecompute, the company that provides Crime ...

The October 2011 sale of Global Tel*Link Corp. (GTL), the nation’s largest prison and jail phone company, demonstrates what a goldmine prison phone services are for the provider side of the market. The sale, reportedly valued at $1 billion, was highly unusual because it was a leveraged deal at a time when the nearly frozen financial sector is running from most leveraged deals.

GTL and its subsidiaries provide phone services for the prison systems of over half the states plus various county jails. In February 2009, the private equity firm Veritas Capital and Goldman Sachs purchased GTL from Gores Equity LLC for $345 million. The deal to sell GTL to Alabama-based American Securities Capital, another private equity firm, will about triple their investment.

The high value of GTL derives from the fact that it operates a pure monopoly once it obtains a prison phone contract. The company then price-gouges its captive customers, who have few other means of calling their family members and friends.

GTL charges up to $3.95 plus $.89 per minute for long distance calls, or $17.30 for a 15-minute conversation. The company’s call rates vary from state to state; GTL also charges service fees, such as for ...

The Louisiana Public Service Commission (PSC) is examining the rates for phone calls made by prisoners. To help it in that determination, the PSC has hired outside counsel to analyze rates, review regulations and compare them with other states to decide if they are “just, fair and reasonable.”

PLN previously reported that states receive an average of 41.9% of the gross revenue from prisoner calls in kickbacks from phone service providers. The only thing that controls the high rates for prison phone calls is “pure, unabated greed by both the phone companies” and state prison systems. [See: PLN, April 2011, p.1].

In Louisiana the kickback is 55% of gross prison phone revenue. “A lot of people think this is grossly unfair,” said PSC Commissioner Foster Campbell, a former state senator. “This affects a lot of families in Louisiana.”

Prisoners at the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison pay $1.31 for the first five minutes of a local call and $.50 for each five-minute period thereafter, or $2.31 for a 15-minute call. According to Pam Laborde, spokeswoman for the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the cost for collect intrastate calls averages $5.55.

Laborde touted that as a good deal when ...

In April 2011, Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), announced that he intended to enlist the aid of companies that bid for the state’s lucrative prison phone service contract in an effort to stem the ever-increasing tide of unauthorized cell phone calls made by prisoners.

Cate’s motivation is simple. CDCR cannot afford the estimated $16.5 million to $33 million it would cost to install up-to-date “managed access” technology at all 33 state prisons to block cellular signals. The motivation for the phone companies to help combat cell phone use by prisoners is equally simple: profits. As the number of contraband cell phones in the CDCR has grown, the prison phone system’s revenue has fallen.

In a recent interview, Cate put it bluntly. “If cell phones are inoperable, the company will make more money,” he said. That is, without contraband cell phones, prisoners who want to call family members and friends will have only one other option – prison pay phones, which will generate more money for the prison system’s phone service contractor, currently Global Tel*Link.

Cell phone jamming systems are used in prisons in Mexico, France, Australia and other countries, but face roadblocks in ...

In February 2011 it was revealed that the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in Nashville, Tennessee had recorded approximately 300 phone calls between jail prisoners and their lawyers, then gave the recordings to federal prosecutors.

The calls were recorded despite the unwritten policy of the Sheriff’s Office not to listen to attorney-client phone calls; Sheriff’s officials claimed the recordings were inadvertent.
The controversy arose when 142 CDs containing the calls, among many other phone conversations from the jail, were turned over to federal prosecutors who shared them with dozens of criminal defense lawyers.

Some of the defense attorneys whose calls were recorded objected to their release, claiming it violated attorney-client privilege, but other defense lawyers refused to return the CDs with the recorded calls, saying they might be useful in the representation of their clients.

U.S. Attorney Jerry E. Martin, who ultimately received the CDs with the attorney phone recordings, said “It’s our policy not to listen to those calls. The controversy arises because there’s [sic] criminal defense lawyers in town who want to listen to other defense lawyers’ calls.”

As part of an investigation into a Somali gang sex-trafficking ring, the U.S. Attorney had requested recordings of phone calls made ...

On May 1, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services affirmed a lower court’s judgment rejecting a service member’s claim that he was denied the right to appellate counsel because brig officials were present when he called his attorney.

David M. Brooks, a Marine Corps. Corporal was convicted of violating several provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While confined in the brig, Brooks made several calls to his appellate attorney. During each call, brig personnel were present.
Brooks filed a complaint alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated each time brig officials were present when he called his attorney. According to Brooks, the presence of the guards “chilled his attorney-client communications” because the guards were able to overhear his conversations.

The court of appeals rejected Brooks’ Sixth Amendment claim. Even assuming brig personnel were close enough to overhear Brooks’ conversations, he was unable to show prejudice, the court held. See: United States v. Brooks, 66 M.J. 221 (2008).

A lawsuit challenging the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008 (FAA) may proceed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided March 21, 2011. The lower court dismissed the suit on standing grounds.

Amnesty International, with numerous other attorneys, journalists, and human rights organizations, sued the director of National Intelligence, arguing that the FAA violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution, separation of powers, and the First and Fourth Amendments. The FAA, according to the plaintiff’s complaint, “allows the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents.”

In reversing the district court, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their suit because the FAA’s procedures “cause them to fear that their communications will be monitored, and thus force them to undertake costly and burdensome measures to protect the confidentiality of international communications necessary to carrying out their jobs.” See: Amnesty International v. Clapper, No. 09-4113-CV, (2nd Cir. 2011).

At the Montgomery County jail in Dayton, Ohio, taking more than a half-million dollars annually from prisoners who want to call their loved ones is actually called “giving.”

When asked by the Dayton Daily News about prisoners’ telephone access in Montgomery County, Major Daryl Wilson explained, “We give them as many calls as they need to let people know where they are.”

Of course all that giving has meant a windfall for Montgomery County and jail vendor Aramark Correctional Services, which will split more than $370,000 in revenue from sales of pre-paid phone cards.

The county’s share of the sales – 42%, or about $156,000 annually – must be spent “to support the current jail inmate population,” Wilson stated.

“We can’t go out and buy new cruisers with that money,” he said. “It has to be spent on the inmates, according to Ohio law.”

The county will reap an additional $200,000 in 2011 from collect calls, which Wilson said is used to offset the cost for an operator and pays for maintenance to the jail’s “heavy-duty telephones.”

Montgomery County jail prisoners must wait three days after being booked before they are allowed access to the commissary. For $10 they can ...

A video visitation system has been installed at Florida’s Charlotte County Jail. Using money from the Inmate Welfare Fund, which is derived from profits from the canteen and other services to prisoners, the jail installed a system that allows virtual visits over the Internet.

The technology is the first of its kind in Florida and was installed by Montgomery Technology, Inc., which hopes it will catch on and generate more business in other jails and prisons.

“If somebody is incarcerated here but their grandma is in Ohio, they can actually visit them in Ohio via their computers,” said Charlotte County Sheriff Bill Cameron, who said his staff will be monitoring the visits to prevent such things as virtual conjugal visits. “My staff will be having a screen that shows all the visits that are going on at any given moment so they can be watching.”

Revenue generated from the video visitation will be split between Montgomery Technology and the Inmate Welfare Fund. The cost to schedule a visit is about $33 – a fairly hefty fee. The jail has also implemented a program that generates revenue by running ads on the video visitation screens while prisoners and their families are ...

by John E. Dannenberg

When a private prison corporation sued Director Jeanne Woodford of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for alleged defamatory statements made against the corporation's performance on a CDCR contract, which were made in the proper discharge of Woodford's official duties, she was held absolutely immune from suit by the privilege granted in California Civil Code § 47.

Maranatha Corrections, LLC is a private prison company with which CDCR had contracted to operate a community correctional facility in southern California. To fulfill its obligation to provide telephone services for the prisoners, Maranatha had contracted with Global Tel*Link (Global), the same contractor that CDCR uses in its prisons. As in its prison contract, Global paid a hefty kickback from excess profits built into its prisoner-only telephone rate. CDCR transfers its Global kickback funds into the Inmate Welfare Fund (IWF), allegedly to be used for prisoner programs. [The benefit to prisoners is questionable, however, since all IWF revenues first flow into the state's General Fund, from which the Legislature then appropriates prisoner-friendly expenditures in its annual budget. To the extent that IWF fund contributions exceed IWF appropriations, the excess remains in the General Fund, amounting to a ...