Contraband provided to federal inmates at Pensacola FPC

I was doing a search earlier today and found a news story I was surprised I hadn't heard about while I was in prison. This is going to be a really long commentary but I hope you find it entertaining, if not enlightening.

DOJ Press Release:

Four individuals charged with providing contraband to federal inmates at Pensacola Federal Prison Camp

This occurred last October, 6 months before I reported to prison.

As the title of the US Attorney Press Release suggests, four individuals provided contraband to federal inmates. The charges, as always, sound serious:

1. "conspiracy to accept a bribe, bribery and providing contraband" -> "thirty years imprisonment and fines of over $500,000"

2. "conspiracy to accept an unlawful gratuity, accepting an unlawful gratuity, making a false statement to an special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and providing contraband to an federal inmate" -> "twelve years imprisonment and fines of over $750,000"

3. "providing contraband to a federal inmate" -> "six months imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000"

Allow me to assist in reading between the lines and provide some context.

As I have described previously in my blog, Pensacola FPC is a workcamp. Most inmates work offsite among civilians. Indeed, they are supervised by civilians.

The BOP has a relationship with the Dept of Defense to use inmate labor to provide groundskeeping services for the local military installations. Regal Select Services has the contract to supervise Pensacola PFC inmates for the the Pensacola Naval Air Station which includes several locations (including Saufley field, where I worked). The primary location is NAS near the beach (see map below which shows the distance between Saufley Field and NAS and how large NAS really is). The majority of inmates ride a bus each morning 20-25 minutes to NAS. There are almost 30 separate work details -- some ridiculously easy, others quite demanding. The supervisor-to-inmate ratio is 12:1 (or so I was told by one of my supervisors). You can see pictures of the supervisors at the RSSI website link above, wearing their standard issue tan/khaki t-shirts and shorts.

With rare exception, inmates have no problem with the supervisors. Most RSSI civilian contract supervisors are regular guys -- this is their job and they have no interest in making it any harder than it has to be. Generally speaking there is a certain amount of work that has to be done each day and once it's done, they don't care if you take it easy. There is a fine balance that most of them learn... after all, there is only so much you can get out of a guy who is being paid $0.12/hr who you don't have the authority to fire. If you push too hard, inmates will push back and do less. If you don't push at all, no one will do anything. (If an inmate absolutely refuses to work, you can report it to the prison and they will deal with it.)

I suspect that most supervisors realize that inmates in a prison camp are also regular guys -- there are no violent sociopaths here. It is very easy to imagine that the line between civilian and inmate gets blurred so it seems like an ordinary employment relationship. An inmate, after working for some time with a supervisor, may ask the supervisor for a favor... and sweeten the request with a little incentive. They both know its against the rules, but it seems relatively harmless. I never personally witnessed any of this but I know it happens and can easily imagine it happening. This is not like bribing a guard to smuggle a skiv or chisel into a jail cell, although these people were treated as if that is what they did.

Certain items are prohibited for inmates to possess -- "contraband." Many contraband items are not in and of themselves dangerous or illegal; they are just against BOP regulations. Typical examples in a prison camp would be money, cell phones, cigarettes, computers, and food supplements. While it is merely against BOP rules for inmates to possess contraband, it is a federal offense for someone on the outside to provide an inmate with contraband. These supervisors would have known that, I have no doubt.

The only contraband that I ever actually witnessed that would get someone in trouble was cigarettes, which were prevalent. There are minor contraband items that will merely get seized if discovered. For example, one friend, knowing I liked golf, brought me back a brand new ProV1 golf ball from his work detail with "Perdido Bay Golf Club" stamped on the side. Technically, this is contraband. Had a CO found it in my locker, he probably would have taken it from me. That would have been it. Fortunately, I still have it. (How I got it out is another funny story.)

To add a little more context, the current warden arrived about a year ago. Prior to that, I have heard that the prison was, well, pretty wide open. Cigarettes, cell phones, portable DVD players, computers, alcohol, and drugs. Even unofficial "furloughs" with the wife or girlfriend were common. The warden at the time was basically AWOL (I was told no one ever saw him there) and the staff didn't enforce the rules. That changed with the new warden. He cleaned house and cracked down. (Some may argue that the new warden has gone too far in the other direction -- shipping inmates for relatively minor offenses.) My point is that it seems that a "culture of contraband" existed prior to mid-2006, in which prison staff had a very relaxed attitude about enforcing contraband rules. This probably lulled some of the civilian supervisors into a false sense of safety about providing favors to certain inmates. After all, "everyone does it."

I don't think it is a coincidence that these four individuals were charged several months after the new warden arrived for conduct that occurred prior to that. I am sure he probably initiated an investigation into the source of all of the contraband that he discovered upon arriving. I also suspect that this was just the tip of the iceberg and that these poor individuals were simply made an example of. This kind of activity was probably very common. Again, I don't have any direct knowledge (after all, this was before I was there) but if as much contraband existed back then as I heard about, the most likely source was the off site work details. That doesn't mean that most supervisors assisted in importing contraband but it is hard to believe it was just these four.

OK, enough background. What exactly did these four individuals do? (By the way, it is not my intention to embarrass them. I wish I didn't have to identify them but the information I am providing is public record and I hope that I am actually providing a more sympathetic, not critical, view of their conduct.) You can click on the appropriate link to read each person's indictment and sentence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

England (read indictment)

There are 8 overt acts identified, but it basically appears that he received money and nutritional supplements from an inmate's family member and arranged for them to be transferred to the inmate. It is not at all clear that England even profited from this. Indeed, it specifically lists several transactions ($250, $500) in which England received the same amount he delivered. He also is accused of allowing inmates to leave their work assignment and make unmonitored cell phone calls.

In federal legalese, this "favor" translates into "conspiracy to accept a bribe, bribery and providing contraband to a federal inmate."

England is now a federal felon serving a 13 month sentence (along with $3000 fine, $300 special assessment, and 3 years probation). Ouch! Don't forget to tip the bailiff, thank you very much. England will be released in Jan, 2008.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Patterson (read indictment)

Five overt acts are listed. Actually, they can be combined into two.

1. He received unnamed contraband through the mail from an inmate's friend and delivered it to the inmate for an unspecified amount of money.
2. He received a laptop at his home via express mail for delivery to an inmate in exchange for $100. I assume a friend paid for the laptop and had it shipped to the supervisor.

He also is accused of allowing inmates to leave their work assignment and make unmonitored cell phone calls. Yawn.

In federal legalese, this translates into "conspiracy to accept a bribe and bribery."

Patterson is now a federal felon serving a 15 month sentence (along with $100 fine, $200 special assessment, and 2 years probation). Ouch #2! He will be released May, 2008, although he has an appeal pending (good luck!). Why did Patterson get a longer prison sentence than England for arguably lesser conduct? Just a guess, but 1) he is black (England is white) and 2) he had a public defender (England retained private counsel). They were sentenced by the same judge one month apart (England first) so difference in judges doesn't account for it. I don't want to imply racial motives or impugn public defenders, but it does make you wonder.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Nightengale (read indictment)

There are apparently 5 basic acts:

1. Delivered cash and a cell phone to an inmate from a family member in exchange for an item of jewelry as a gratuity.
2. Used an inmate to translate Spanish-English for another inmate concerning the introduction of contraband for the Spanish speaking inmate. Huh??
3. It appears she was set up by an undercover FBI agent posing as an inmate's relative to transfer a digital player (DVD, I would guess) in exchange for an item of jewelry.
4. Lied to a federal agent about providing contraband to inmates. Oops, I hate when that happens. (This is what sent Martha Stewart to prison. Lying to a federal agent, even if you are not under oath, is a crime. Don't do it. If fact, never talk to a federal agent without consulting your lawyer first.)
5. Allowed unmonitored cell phone usage.

She is now a federal felon sentenced for "conspiracy to accept a gratuity" and "making a false statement" to 4 months prison followed by 4 months home confinement (as well as 2 years probation, $500 fine, $200 special assessment). She must have been at 11 poinst which is 8-14 points with split sentence allowed. She will be released September, 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Mayer (read information)

She provided protein powder and clothing to "E.J.," an inmate in March, 2004. Are you kidding me?

She was convicted of a misdemeanor and received a sentence of 1 year probation, 25 hours community service, $350 fine and $10 special assessment. At least they cut her a little slack.

-----------------------------------------------------------

When I first read this press release and, later, the indictments, I got flashbacks. Not that I was accused of doing the same thing, but I could relate to the way DOJ press releases and indictments have a way of making the conduct sound so much worse than it really is. You just get steamrolled by the system. And the media just prints what the government sends them.

It is hard to overstate how really minor these offenses are in the scheme of things. Yes, what they did was wrong. Yes, they should have been fired. But, unless the contraband they provided was truly dangerous or otherwise illegal (e.g. cocaine), it really is not that big of a deal. Will someone please tell me who was hurt by this? To turn 3 of them into federal felons and send them to prison for 13, 15, and 4 months, respectively is just sick. It is wrong, wrong, wrong. (It also makes me that much more grateful that I somehow got a 3 month sentence. That seems like a miracle now.) Can you imagine being in prison and telling your fellow inmates that you are there for providing them with contraband?!

One of my frustrations with the federal judicial process is its seeming inability to make proper distinctions and use discretion. Where has wisdom gone? Can't we have just a little perspective?

I am sure the judge and prosecutor took the nature of the contraband into consideration at sentencing but the judge is practically constrained by the statutes and the plea deal (yes, I know the guidelines are officially only advisory but they are practically mandatory), which the defendants had no choice but to accept once the prosecutors chose to charge them, otherwise they really would have been punished by the judge. (Roughly speaking, their sentence would have at least been doubled had they gone to trial. In many cases, defendants risk sentences 4-5 times greater if they exercise their right to a jury trial. I will provide an example in a future story.)

What happened to the inmates? It doesn't appear the inmates did anything illegal. That is, they did not face additional criminal charges. Of coure, they violated BOP rules and I am sure were disciplined. Given that this corresponded with the advent of the new warden, I am sure their punishment involved transfers to other prisons (as he did to probably 200 other inmates for various contraband violations... mostly cigarettes).

What about the family members that were the actual source of the contraband? It doesn't appear that anything happened to them either. They may have been banned from future contact or correspondence with the inmate for a period of time but they don't appear to have faced criminal charges.

No doubt this strong action against these supervisors probably had the desired effect on the other supervisors, many of whom were probably just as guilty but didn't get caught. This is what judges call "general deterrance;" that is, one of the purposes of sentencing is to deter others from committing the same crime, especially when the crimes are difficult to catch. You "slam" the few you catch in order to scare the others straight.

Well, that is, as Paul Harvey might say, "the rest of the story." Actually, there is a whole lot more "reading between the lines" and speculation than I normally allow myself (which means a good bit of it might be fiction) but I was hoping I might be able to provide a little more insight into the dynamics of how something like this might happen as well as how unyielding federal law can be when seemingly minor offenses in which no one was really hurt can yield life-altering consequences for the perpetrators.

(click to enlarge)