Rick Benetti, the top prison spokesman, wanted a chance to clarify some issues raised in earlier blogs about illegal prison phones. As you remember, a suspect in a murder-for-hire case now being tried in U.S. District Court in Baltimore allegedly used an illegal phone to threaten a witness, who recanted his testimony. People have wondered why phone signals at prisons can't be jammed, and fodder on the Ed Norris show this week seemed to indicate a simple solution. Apparently it's far more complex:

Hi Peter. I wanted to point out a couple of points that are very misleading to your readers from your blog - Baltimore Crime Beat – Prison Cell Phones, 3/24/2009.

First and foremost is the issue if cellular jamming equipment. As you clearly neglected to point out to your readers, aside from a few exempt federal agencies, jamming cellular phone and radio signals is illegal in the United States. You can’t do it, I can’t do it, states and local law enforcement can’t do it – legally. Check the revised Telecommunications Act of 1934. I appreciate that you referenced the Safe Prisons Communications Act but the summary you used says only that this would allow states to petition the FCC for permission to use this technology.

I realize this is a blog and not a news report governed by certain ethical guidelines we all learned in college… but when you and the Baltimore Sun are clearly attempting to drive a discussion criticizing Maryland’s prison system for not using available technology to keep prisons safe, you do a disservice to you readers when you fail to point out that this technology is, well, illegal.

On the news side of things you and I both know that fact would’ve killed, if not drastically changed the angle of a story you were attempting to write about this issue.

Secondly, when you blog that the department (or that I) say there are “privacy issues” involved, clearly we do not mean the privacy inmates under DPSCS supervision. What you didn’t point out to your readers is that those “privacy issues” were brought up in a quick discussion between us about the broader context of the federal law. Those “privacy issues” relate to the GPS in many private citizens’ cell phones for example. Or the spectrum, frequency and telecommunication networks privately owned by companies, like say Verizon.

That’s about it on the those two issues but I would point out that in the last 18-months, the Department and the O’Malley Administration have made contraband and institutional safety top priorities. To that end we have poured more resources into catching contraband before it gets in, using intelligence to find it once it gets in, and finding innovative and inexpensive ways to find cell phones specifically (our nationally recognized cell phone finding K-9 program).

Some quick stats:

Through the first six months of FY2009 we are up 26% in cell phone recoveries, Compared to the first half of FY2008.That’s 645 cell phones from inmates. The Division’s K9 Unit alone located 63 of those phones. In calendar year 2008, DOC recovered or intercepted 947 cell phones – a 71% increase compared to 2006.

This combined with other increased security priorities have dramatically reduced the number of serious assaults by inmates on staff (those needing more than basic first aid) which dropped 32% from 2006 to 2008. Over the same time period serious assaults by inmate on inmate dropped 28%.

Our critics would wrongly point out that the Department shouldn’t tout such numbers as success. But they’d be wrong. Cell phone in prison is a major issue in every prison system in the country. That’s why the Safe Prisons Communications Act is making it’s way through the House. The fact is. The more we find, the less there are.

Rick Binetti

Director of Communications

MD Dept of Public Safety & Correctional Services