It was barely five months ago that I wrote for Boston Magazine: "By now, everyone has heard about the amazing sense of smell of bomb-sniffing dogs, which we saw on the front lines of the Boston Marathon bombings. But a new policy coming to state prisons that involves dogs trained to sniff out drugs could rattle some cages, and it should cause us to ask: Is Massachusetts turning down the wrong criminal justice path, aiming to fix a problem without getting at its core cause?"
Since then our state has plunged ahead, seemingly oblivious to the fact that while dogs are certainly useful as a way of sniffing out bombs and contraband, when I asked, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) could come up with no research to support this action. An international study conducted from Australia in 2008 on how contraband gets into prison raised concerns about the effectiveness of random dog searches. Without secrecy, the study says, searches are not as effective, and secrecy is nearly impossible. Searches slow down as soon as dogs are present, and instead of acting as a deterrent, the dogs act as signals that such searches are in process.
11,500 people who live in our Massachusetts state prisons depend on visits from their families to give them hope that, one day, they will have a second chance at a productive life. That means letters and visits can be lifelines for prisoners. “Successful family and community reunification,” is part of the mission of Corrections, according to a resolution of the American Corrections Association.
And the irony of this policy is it assumes drugs are being brought in primarily by vistors to state prisons, a response to a so-called "huge up-tick," per a DOC memo.The DOC's "Use of Nonaggressive Drug Detection Canines" — to assure four year olds that they should not be afraid? to say there is will be no fallout with sniffing visitors in the traps when they enter prison? — says there have been 177 instances in three years and ten months— slightly less than once a week. But Lois Ahrens, Executive Director of The Real Cost of Prisons Project (RCPP), who has mounted a campaign against the policy, says this in "no way accounts for the volume of drugs (and other contraband including cell phones and pizzas) in Massachusetts' prisons."
The DOC is currently recommending dog-sniffing of staff and guards, new on the front burner since I wrote my article in May. But ironically again, these sniffs will begin in November at random sites _Massachusetts has seventeen state facilities — and occur only during visiting hours on the 3-11 p.m.shift. This leaves sixteen hours every day guards are not being sniffed. How is that tackling the problem of guards, staff, attorneys and other DOC employees possibly bringing in contraband?
DOC Spokesperson Terrel Harris said in an email that the DOC found only “seven incidents of employees introducing drugs or contraband into the DOC.” His list was compiled from “a database search for ‘drugs’ and investigations for the ‘introduction of contraband’ and/or ‘criminal conduct while on duty’ for dates 1/1/11 through 3/21/13.”
This seems ridiculously low. There are easily hundreds of incidents nationwide of correctional officers bringing in drugs, cell phones and other contraband, readily searchable online. Nationwide arrests of federal prison guards—in part, for smuggling contraband—increased by 90 percent over the last decade. A Boston Globe editorial put it well: “It beggars belief to think all drugs in prisons come from visitors.” To solve this problem in Massachusetts, Ahrens said in an interview, “there needs to be a real internal investigation of DOC employees, staff, and guards.” Officials insist they have a zero-tolerance drug policy in prisons and that drug detection dogs have sniffed out drugs in letters and packages addressed to prisoners. In 2011 and 2012, the DOC says they confiscated 18 instances of drugs that came in through the mail.
Ahrens decries the idea that these "sniffs" of visitors are harmless. Currently, visitors are sent through a scanner, much like at an airport, and they’re often asked to take off articles of clothing such as shoes, belts, and the like. It’s not uncommon for an officer to inspect the bottom of a visitor’s feet, or to ask the visitor to open his mouth or to go through her hair. Andrea Cabral, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) said in an interview that “Just the presence of the dog will keep people from bringing in drugs,” or so she hopes. But If the dog “alerts” to the smell of drugs on a visitor and sits, the visitor must consent to a “thorough search” by Department of Correction staff. If not, that person will be banned from entering any DOC facility. Accommodations will be made for those who have allergies or are “dog phobic,” but no one has mentioned what these accomodations are. There is the possibility, if drugs are found, of arrest on the spot.
Many family members of prisoners are not happy with this impending policy. A recent Globe article was highly critical of the plan, and social justice activists launched a letter and call-in campaign which you can find out more about on the RCPP facebook page. Ahrens feels the policy is “demeaning, degrading, and treats the visitor as a suspect, and dogs will make visiting even more cumbersome"—waits can be long. On the DOC website, the original video which showed the whole sniffing process has been shortened to show only a very friendly-looking golden retriever, obviously to make the process less intimidating and to justify the rationale.
A search of the visiting policies on DOC websites in nearby states showed no dog-sniffing policies mentioned in New York, Connecticut, Maine, or Rhode Island. New Hampshire considered dog detection but ultimately decided not to embrace the policy, said Jeff Lyons, Public Information Officer for their DOC, in a phone conversation. Vermont does allow drug-sniffing canines. But certainly, nationwide, there is no consensus. Some states such as California only allow visitors’ cars to be sniffed by dogs—considered less intrusive in an Oklahoma litigated case than sniffs of “bodies.”
Meanwhile, per the Globe and Jim Pingeon, attorney at Prisoners Legal Services (PLS), groups such as the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and PLS are discussing suing over this issue. They are currently looking for plaintiffs, especially children who are afraid of dogs, and interested persons can contact Ahrens at lois@realcostofprisons.org.
If Massachusetts wants to get serious on ridding its prisons of drugs, then it better take a holistic approach. Instead of just looking at the visitors, we need to consider the whole picture—a picture that also includes the very people tasked with keeping prisons running in the first place.
