Earlier this month I wrote a short essay (“It’s a Dog’s Life”) about the misuse of drug-sniffing canines in the abuse of prisoners at the private for-profit prison in Florence, Arizona, operated by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Less than two weeks have gone by since that writing and, yet again, another canine tale rises to the surface at this facility.
Last week prisoners were locked down for several days to allow a search of all the prisoners, their cells, and prisoner accessed spaces. Lasting several days, this shake-down began with locking us in our cells and placing us on the sandwich-in-a-sack diet. On Day One (Wednesday, May 11), prisoners were removed from five cells at a time, while drug-sniffing canines and their handlers, from both CCA and Arizona law enforcement, went from cell to cell. At that time, if the dog “alerted,” indicating the presence of drugs, the cells occupants were removed to the corridor, ordered to provide a urine sample, and sent on their way to Segregation.
On Day Two, prisoners were removed from their cells and strip-searched in the presence of both male and female staff (including, oddly, Case Managers and Substance Abuse Program Counselors), and cells were individually searched for contraband. For the most part, the contraband found and confiscated consisted of altered magazines, cardboard shelves from lockers, and miscellaneous items not authorized for possession by that particular prisoner (i.e., cd’s, art supplies with out-dated permits, etc.). My understanding is that no caches of drugs, weapons, or escape implements were discovered, although 17 to 19 Alaskan prisoners were taken to segregation based upon canine “alerts”.
Save for the organized strip tease in the presence of female staff, this shake-down was neither unusual, nor particularly unpleasant in comparison to other lock down shake-downs I have previously experienced. However, the manner that the CCA dog-handler treated his working dog – who appeared to be a Black Labrador mix – was both notable and unconscionable.
In at least two instances during the facility shake-down, the CCA dog-handler was seen to lead his dog to a call, yank on his leash aggressively to get the dog’s wandering attention, and when that, apparently, did not get the desired response, the handler then grabbed the dog by it’s collar and jerked it’s head up and down toward the ground. One prisoner even reported that the handler had booted the animal in his long shank to evoke and response. Not surprisingly, when the dog responded by jumping, yelping or barking, the handler declared an “alert” and the cell’s occupants were, as stated above, given a urinalysis and taken to the Hole.
One of the prisoners who watched as the dog was shaken and coerced into a supposed “alert” response and who was, subsequently, marched off to Segregation, stated that the CCA dog and handler were preceded into his cell by an actual Arizona law enforcement officer and his dog, who found nothing, but did look on the actions of the CCA dog-handler with thinly disguised disgust and dismay.
In an incident prior to the May 11 – 13 lock down shake-down, I personally witnessed the CCA dog-handler lead his dog into a call, then proceed to fake tossing a toy to the dog until it finally got excited and barked. The handler, in that case, also declared an “alert” and the cell was thoroughly tossed up. Interestingly, in that search, as well as in all the searches conducted because on “alerts” during the lock down shake-down, no drugs were found and urinalyses conducted on cell occupants were, reportedly, negative for drug use.
On its face, none of this may mean much to Alaska’s Legislators and officials of the Department of Corrections: They sent prisoners outside, because it’s cheaper and easier to ignore them. And, as has often been reported, Corrections Corporation of America has always found it easy to deny and ignore the abuse of prisoners in their custody, so long as the money keeps pouring in. But, Alaska State officials should look at the actions of this dog handler and the effect of his actions, because more that just a dog and prisoners suffer under his behavior. Visitors, traveling at great cost in time and financial expense, can be, and are denied the opportunity to visit on the say-so of the CCA employee and the supposed “alerts” of his work dog – without any drugs or contraband ever being found, or even truly suspected.
No sane person can deny the necessity of interdicting the use of drugs in prison. Particularly, if re-habilitation and education are truly goals of imprisonment, since drugs are a factor in most crimes. The use of drug-sniffing dogs can be a most useful tool in that interdiction, but only if their handlers are conscientious, well trained professionals using properly trained, humanely treated canines. Otherwise, they only provide another opportunity for prison employees with weak and sick characters to demean, disrespect, and abuse prisoners and their families, while doing a disservice to a public deceived out of their tax dollars.
Anthony L. Brown, May 2005