Using Investigative Surveillance Technology in Correctional Institutions

IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH 1

In the correctional setting, correctional administrators are often faced with a variety of challenges dealing with criminal conduct involving inmates and, on occasion, staff. The very nature of the correctional

setting - hundreds to thousands of offenders supervised by staff within the confines of a hardened and secure perimeter - creates an array of complex technical and human problems for correctional investigators. For this reason, the selection, deployment and acquisition as well as the legal and ethical use of modern surveillance technology must be considered.

Prison venues are in most cases facilities filled with masse obstructions of concrete, steel and wire, the ambient noise of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and the daily activity of people functioning within. The investigator must also function under the probing eye of inmates and, unfortunately, unethical staff who may intentionally or inadvertently thwart investigators' abilities to perform their duties. A further complication some departments face is the variation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction relative to the investigator's scope of authority. In some jurisdictions, correctional investigators have full peace officer authority, while in others they have none. The latter creates a circumstance in which perpetrators are unlikely to be detected and held criminally accountable. However, in other jurisdictions, criminal investigations are conducted by state or local law enforcement agencies, but unfortunately these officers may lack institutional knowledge and experience. The scope of the investigator's authority notwithstanding the deployment of surveillance devices within a facility must be lawful and ethical. For those departments that lack peace officer powers, effective liaison between the department and state and local law enforcement agencies, and county, state or district attorneys is critical. Corrections officials must communicate the need for effective investigation and prosecution of inmates, staff and citizens who choose to engage in criminal activity or enterprise within jails and prisons.

IMAGE PHOTOGRAPH 2

Community collaboration is essential to fulfilling the mission of public safety through the operation of safe, secure facilities. Corrections professionals must incorporate a bit of the community-policing model into their operations and marketing strategy to increase public awareness and garner political support. It is reasonable to believe that the worst offenders, if allowed to commit a crime while incarcerated, are likely to re-offend after release unless they are held accountable. Visitors or staff who choose to conspire with inmates must be held accountable as well.

Correctional workers know that their privacy is very limited within the confines of the facilities. As a matter of law and administrative regulation, employees' expressed consent to searches of vehicles, person and property is made clear. In the event that reasonable suspicion or probable cause is developed pursuant to an investigation using surveillance equipment, a search is likely to follow.

The Fourth Amendment states, in part, that "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." Regarding this issue, the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin published "Revoking Consent to Search" by Jayme W. Holcomb in February 2005. Citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973), Holcomb noted that, "Law enforcement officers, however, do not need probable cause or a warrant to conduct a search if the person with proper authority voluntarily consents to the search," adding that "The prevailing view is that an individual may revoke a previously given consent to search at any time prior to the discovery of the items sought." However, in a prison setting, citing United States v. Spriggs, 827 F. Supp. 372 (E.D. VA. 1993), Holcomb wrote, "At least one court has held that once a prison visitor who is forewarned that all visitors will be searched and consents to the search, that consent cannot be withdrawn once the search begins." Holcomb went on to say that "A rule allowing consent to be withdrawn at any time would encourage contraband smuggling into prisons by providing a secure escape for a smuggler whenever the search threatened to detect the contraband." Here it is clear that existing case law supports that it is reasonable for correctional staff to conduct and complete searches once consent has been given.

Deployment Considerations

Untargeted deployment of surveillance equipment or "fishing expeditions" has limited value and may over expose investigators and equipment to detection, thus limiting its value for more critical cases. A note of caution is in order at this point. If the basis for the surveillance is suspected sexual misconduct, regardless of gender or whether the targets are staff or inmates, the best practice is to live-monitor the surveillance equipment at all times in order to fulfill the obligation of preventing and detecting crime. Corrections professionals have a duty to protect the victim, so a plan for rapid intervention and arrest should be in place. Regardless of whether the suspected crime is sexual misconduct or introduction of contraband, anomalies are always possible. More than a few drug deals have evolved into serious assaults or homicides. The staff member who is suspected of sexual misconduct with an inmate or another staff member may become a rape victim if a facility is not prepared to react and respond. Therefore, proper deployment of an investigative team and modern surveillance equipment provides the department with the means to more effectively prevent criminal activity and gather evidence.

Selecting the Right Systems

Entering the phrase "surveillance equipment" or "surveillance technology" in an Internet search engine will likely result in nearly 1 million total hits for both terms. While navigating the World Wide Web, the amount of information on the subject seems boundless, and in the shadow of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the number of vendors in the market seems to have increased exponentially. These technologies are not solely the province of government but aggressively marketed to the general public, including the criminal element. Thus, potential customers of these technologies may be offenders, despite exhibiting their ineptness by being offenders in the first place, who are often quite familiar with the technology's capabilities.

The equipment in question falls loosely into three categories: drug detection instruments such as ion scan, video devices and audio devices. Miniature video and audio devices in the recent past have operated as independent systems, but with the advent of the computer chip, very discrete installations can now offer both an independent system and an integrated system. Analogue video and audio signals are now processed into clear digital video and audio through CCD (charged coupled device) pinhole cameras with audio capabilities that are no larger than a bottle cap. These state-of-the-art units use light-sensitive computer chips and auto iris technology that adjust to ambient light and are motion sensitive. Microwave audio/video systems provide clear audio and images in low-medium and high-band radio transmission-filled environments. Quality body transmitters not only allow the investigator to remotely monitor but also have integral digital audio recording systems that function independent of a remote recorder. Radio frequency transmitters are ideal for installations that lack existing infrastructure for hard wiring such as visiting rooms. These technologies are effective, but not without the limitation of battery life that is typically three to six hours, depending on conditions and other interference such as structures and ambient radio frequency noise. Also, they can be scanned with commercially available scanning equipment.

Sometimes radio frequency transmission, regardless of frequency range, may not be reliable, so getting hard wired is suggested. When dealing with a fixed or multiple fixed locations, hard wiring connectivity to monitors and power is always the best practice; hence, reliable facility maintenance staff is critical to that end. Generally, these staff members can move about a facility somewhat unnoticed and in the background working various electrical, structural, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, fire safety and security systems. These systems provide the pathways through which other systems can be hard wired. With the assistance of maintenance staff, investigators can pull and drop wire to connect audio/video-monitoring equipment to a remote listening post. The types of wire used are typically coaxial cable, twisted pairs and fiber-optic cable. In some cases, existing phone, electrical and computer infrastructure can be used, but they often are not quite compatible with the desired equipment location. Each type will work reasonably well, but coaxial cable is inexpensive and provides good bandwidth, and Mil Spec fiber-optic cable, although substantially more expensive, can be better over longer distances with even greater bandwidth. Both can provide a power conduit for remote devices. The advantage of coaxial cable, of course, is low cost. So once installed, it does not necessarily need to be retrieved after use, depending on the equipment manufacture's specification, because it is so inexpensive that it can be left where it was placed. Technical data and training are available through multiple sources such as the National Technical Investigators' Association (www.natia.org) or the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded Institute of Investigation Technology provided through Accu Quest Corp. (www.aqonline.com). Information on state-of-the-art digital body transmitters is available through Geonautics International Inc. (www.geonautics.com).

Small but Wise Investments

It is not the role of this author to provide information or endorsement for specific vendors. However, experience has shown that through the department procurement process, which typically involves issuing requests for information, requests for qualification and requests for proposal, the department will garner sufficient information to select a qualified vendor.

The cost of a basic system does not have to break the budget. A functional array of pinhole cameras, power supply, video/audio recorder and cable can cost as little as $5,000 to $6,000; add a microwave system with peripherals and the cost will approach $20,000. In addition, a high-quality body transmitter is likely to cost between $5,000 and $8,000. These are small investments given the ultimate cost of staff and other material resources necessary to deal with problems of staff and inmate misconduct through more traditional means (i.e., in the absence of electronic surveillance) and given the opportunity to prevent injuries and even the loss of life.

The preservation of departmental integrity through inmate accountability and staff professional standards is the cornerstone of effective criminal and administrative investigation. The selection of qualified, ethical and empowered investigative staff, regardless of the departmental jurisdiction, is still the most critical duty of leadership. The use of state-of-the-art technology will only enhance the ability of good investigators to do their jobs.

SIDEBAR

Corrections officials must communicate the need for effective investigation and prosecution of inmates, staff and citizens who choose to engage in criminal activity or enterprise within jails and prisons.

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

Michael L. Rulo is inspector general for the Colorado Department of Corrections.