Now
Fair
18°
High
32°
Low
24°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Random searches have prison employee threatening to sue

Comments 54 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star

Sunday, Apr 08, 2007 - 12:05:28 am CDT

For the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, they are meant to keep the state’s prisons as safe as they can be.

But for Brian True, an officer at the Lincoln Correctional Center, the random searches of employee vehicles are nothing but clear violations of the U.S. Constitution.

“If they ask me, what do I have to hide? I’d say, ‘I have nothing to hide. Why do you want to violate my constitutional rights?,’” he said.

Story Photo
Nebraska State Penitentiary (LJS file)
Possible legal precedent

An appeals court in May 2003 ruled in favor of a Miami federal prison worker who refused a search of his vehicle on the prison parking lot. The court found that prison officials had no reasonable suspicion to do the search, making it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The department began random searches of employee vehicles on its public lots a few years ago as part of a longstanding general effort to keep the prisons safe.

“Everything we do is interdiction strategy,” Corrections Department spokesman Steve King said. “It’s a way for us to control what’s going on in our facilities.”

True agreed that one way to minimize trouble inside the prisons is to keep contraband out.

Employees should be subject to searches once they’re inside the prisons and beginning their shifts, he said. And, he said, vehicles coming into secured parking areas ought to be searched.

But random searches — searches done when there’s no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing — go too far, he said.

Employees have the right to refuse the vehicle searches, but that puts them at risk of suspension without pay, True said.

“There are very fine (legal) parameters in doing searches that I think they’re crossing,” said True, who contends the searches violate the Fourth Amendment ban against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“This is a very fundamental right,” said True, in his 13th year as a Corrections Department employee. “I don’t want the king quartering troops in my home, either.”

True has had direct experience with the department’s policy. His vehicle has been searched twice this year.

“I consented,” he said, “but I told them it was under duress.”

The experience prompted him to file a complaint with the Nebraska Ombudsman’s office — and to look for relevant case law.

That search yielded Wiley v. Department of Justice, a federal appeals court decision True says supports his argument.

Derrick Wiley, a teacher in a Miami federal prison, refused a search of his vehicle on the prison parking lot. He then drove away but returned later and consented to the search.

He was fired for the initial refusal. After an administrative judge upheld the termination, Wiley took his case to an appeals court.

The appeals court in May 2003 ruled in Wiley’s favor, finding that prison officials had no reasonable suspicion to do the search, making it a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

King said the vehicle searches here have been conducted with little opposition.

“Our primary mandate is public safety,” King said. True is “certainly in the vast minority of individuals who have a problem with this.”

True said he was aware of one other employee who filed a complaint about the searches. That was two years ago, and the complaint faded away when the employee quit, True said.

That seems unlikely this time around. Indeed, a lawsuit from True seems likely, especially after the ombudsman office’s formal response last week to the searches.

Carl Eskridge, an assistant ombudsman, said in an earlier interview he had concerns about the “randomness” of the searches, but a letter from Ombudsman Marshall Lux to Corrections Director Robert Houston said a “reasonable argument can be made” for the legality of the searches. The letter suggested the department take specific steps to justify the searches to employees and, possibly, judges.

Eskridge could not be reached for comment.

Steps suggested by the ombudsman include that the Corrections Department develop a clear statement of the searches’ purpose. It should also be able to show the searches are, in fact, random.

“I’m pretty disappointed,” True said. “This is a whitewash, a candy-coating, that’s going on.”

He pointed to a statement in the letter that the searches “could be” constitutional.

“If they’re not positive it’s constitutional, why not suspend it” until the question can be answered, he said.

True said he plans to meet with an attorney.

“I want Wiley reaffirmed here,” he said. “I’m prepared to go to federal court to do it.”

Reach Clarence Mabin at cmabin@journalstar.com or 473-7234.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
JJ wrote on April 8, 2007 1:10 am:
" Dept. of Corrections should be able to search employees and their vehicles. It is a known problem of "outsiders" smuggling contraband for prisoners. I applaud the State of Nebraska for keeping its citizens safe. Mr. True, park off of NE State property, take the bus, or find a new job! "

 Ex-Guard wrote on April 8, 2007 1:51 am:
" Random searches are necessary and should continue without delay. I worked for DCS for over seven years and during that time we had many guards that were caught bringing in drugs and other contraband. Several of these guards became inmates too. The searches help keep contraband out and they also help to keep good guards from turning to the dark side. Its part of the job and for most of the present guards, it was part of the job before they were hired. You took the job knowing about the searches so don't complain now. "

 nitemare wrote on April 8, 2007 5:39 am:
" I agree. These "random searches" have gone way to far. Even outside the penal system. Law enforcement over-runs their leash on a regular basis. "

 Hollis wrote on April 8, 2007 7:42 am:
" Im just curious. Are the prison administrators vehicles subject to search. These searches violate the constitution. Period. For you people who believe they are a good idea, you really need to think about this. Every time we allow the government to take away or infringe upon our rights, we lose a little more that we will NEVER get back. I, for one, refuse to give up my constitutional rights. "

 taxpayer wrote on April 8, 2007 7:49 am:
" DUH - Find another job if you don't like it. You have a choice, quit trying to change the system to fit your personal desires. "

 s h wrote on April 8, 2007 8:00 am:
" What a joke! just another example of the the govt. stretching the rules. Tell me this, if a guard is searched as soon as he/she enters the building, how is the contraband getting in? Sounds a little fisy to me. Don't give up the fight Mr. True, someone must stand up to this nonsense. "

 H.P. wrote on April 8, 2007 8:18 am:
" The Department of Corrections is acting in the best interest of the public, its employees, and the inmates. Safety of a prison is similar to a military post. This particular incident the prison is own by the State and parking is on State property. No one challenges the military for same said searches. I suggest play by the State’s rules. This is not Wal-Mart where law enforcement would have some reason. In addition, there are signs posted indicating employee vehicles are subjected to searches. Apparently, the Department of Corrections has all the legal right to search in order to protect and maintain safety for the public, the employees, and the inmates. "

 sam wrote on April 8, 2007 8:19 am:
" I wonder how often the Wardens or any of his associates vehicles have been searched ? I don't think I should have to clean out my vehicle for your pleasure. It's not limited to drug's and other contraband. What about my tools? What if my kid leave's his toy's in the back seat? I think we should worry about what's comming in the facility rather than what's being left in the parking lot. I'm sure that if you searched vehicle's in Wal-Mart parking lot's there would be a lot of people getting aressted. Oh, To the ex-guard. It was not part of the job when they hired me. "

 Respnse to Hollis wrote on April 8, 2007 8:50 am:
" To answer your question. The administration does not get searched. The sheet that shows the "randomness" of the search has those sections blackened out. "

 Krae wrote on April 8, 2007 8:58 am:
" As an ex DCS employee also I can give you a number of reasons why these searchs are necessary and are clearly explained to you when you sign on as a DCS employee. It is first and for most a contraband issue, Ex-Guard hit the nail on the head. ALL of these cars are exposed to inmate visitors and family members. If an inmate has an issue with an officer it doesn't take much to figure out what kind of vehicle that person drives. Stuff can be planted or in the unfortunate event the vehicle is accidently left unlocked things can be stolen. It is about the safety and security of the facility as well as the public. You don't like your car being searched, don't work for the department!!! It is not a violation of your rights when you are clearly told what will be searched, and as far as random, how does one know its not random, when searches are performed the are all called random!! It all goes back to safety and security, same goes for Law Enforcement, my husband is a Cop, so I know all about those randome searches as well, "

 Bill wrote on April 8, 2007 9:00 am:
" Searching the guards that enter the building is one thing, searching the cars they drive is completely different. The parking lot is outside the prison. Searching employee's cars has nothing to do with stopping people from smuggling in contraband. "

 Cpl. C wrote on April 8, 2007 9:30 am:
" I worked for DCS 10 years ago.. there were no vehicle searches back then. I think it is a good idea though unrealistic. Many items commonly found in a car would be considered contraband, such as a lighter and cigarettes. What items are of primary concern? Drugs? Drug dogs would find more drugs than random searches by staff. Does DCS require that absolutely nothing be in an employee's car? No CD's, walkman radios, cash, cigarettes, lighters, cough medicine, etc. If not..how could you prove any items were intended to be brought in the institution?? Get a few more drug dogs and leave the cars alone unless a dog detects drugs. Keep searching staff, inmates, and property inside the institution, search offices and common areas, search state vehicles, search the perimeters. I'm experienced. I'll do it for $45,000 a year. Cost too much? Get more drug dogs. I'll work somewhere else that pays better. :O) "

 Lauriel wrote on April 8, 2007 9:39 am:
" NDCS violate Law? That is very unheard of, any formal or current NDCS Correction Officers, Corporals, Sergants, LT’s, Capt’s, Major’s, Deputy and Associate Wardens and Warden’s are more than aware it happening everywhere… NDCS think they are the law and they don’t even abide by Nebraska State Law. I don’t know of any staff who doesn’t feel violated when their car is searched and as far as staff searching going into the prison it should be law that all staff must be searched (and the staff doing the searching need to be periodically searched by someone up the chain). After being an Officer for 5 years and loving my job, I did feel like there were inmates I was able to reach and I was proud that even though the public has no appreciation for putting our lives at risk every single day goes unappreciated I was keeping them and my family safe. But it is unwritten law that Inmates make noise they get quieted by getting what they want, staff makes noise they get harassed and made an example of. "

 be smart wrote on April 8, 2007 9:59 am:
" Hey uh-duh, isn't there something about every job not liked? When it's legal that's one thing but when it's violating rights, it's wrong and no one should have to tolerate it. The inmates don't, why should the staff putting their lives on stake have to? "

 Rick M wrote on April 8, 2007 10:01 am:
" I'm an ex-guard myself, and I can tell you one reason why your vehicle should be searched. If an inmate escapes, and this inmate somehow gets control of your vehicle, will there be anything inside your vehicle that the inmate could use as a weapon, or could aide in the inmate getting further away, (ie. Money, clothes, etc) All these things are done for SAFETY. I'm curious to know what Wiley had in his vehicle that he didn't want anyone finding... I was a Corporal for 3 years, and my person was searched many times, but my vehicle was not, although they could have if they wanted to. Chance Favors the Prepared Mind. "

 Fever wrote on April 8, 2007 10:10 am:
" This to me is very similar to 9/11, but obviously on much smaller scale. How many people would have been screaming 'your violating my rights' if we had to go through the searches that we do now when getting on an airplane? Well, I'll take a guess that it will take a tragedy similar in nature for everyone to wake up and realize there's a problem. If he has nothing to hide, what's the problem? If I were a prison guard, I would want every precaution taken to ensure my safety. Isn't this an issue of safety? "

 JB wrote on April 8, 2007 10:48 am:
" It's a no win situation. The second they quit doing the searches that's when something will happen where they wish they would have done them. You can't keep the employees happy by doing them either, so what are they to do? If you've been there for 13 years, just get over it. 2 times in 2 years is not that big a deal. If you say you have nothing to hide, then who cares if they search. Ultimately, it's for your own good. "

 KDizzle wrote on April 8, 2007 11:37 am:
" "Taxpayer" says "quit trying to change the system to fit personal desires". Isn't that what elected officials do everytime you vote? Change the system to fit personal desires? I think the guard is right to challenge! "

 Now EX- employee Retired wrote on April 8, 2007 11:40 am:
" I don't expect this to get posted. My main concern is who would be doing the searching...certainly not an employee of the DCS. There is so much game playing to get points with the administration I have doubt that some over-zealous stooge of the administration would plant contraband. I would not dout that for one minute!` This is not unusual in any occupation but the stakes are much higher in a penal setting where the judges and juries meet for a few beers after work. "

 Big Chief wrote on April 8, 2007 12:05 pm:
" I worked at the Pen for ten years. If you are one of the lower ranking staff you will be searched sooner or later. That is part of the job and it is a good thing in my opinion. However in all the time I was there I never saw or heard of the higher ranking adiminstrative personnel being subjected to searches. Maybe the State Patrol should be doing these random searches insted of just DOC employees. Maybe it is time that the Director and all the wardens and other high ranking officials be subjected to the searches just like visitors and peon employees. Keep it honest and let the STATE PATROL do them. "

 Oh Yeah... wrote on April 8, 2007 12:39 pm:
" There wss a regime in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s that was "acting in the interest of the public" too. It is too bad that so few here can see how these things relate to each other. Of course I am subjct to search once I am on my employer's time and on his property, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. "

 like it is wrote on April 8, 2007 1:02 pm:
" Big Cheif it on the nail. I've known staff to plant things in cells and even manage to get the blame put on other staff. There is much favoritism an game playing, I knew one Case Worker who was EXTREMELY dirty and upper administration knew this,,, in 6 hours of working with him I wrote a 6 page report about the inmates controlling him, inmates using his phone, etc and nothing was done, months late it wasn't NDCS who caught him with a roll in his dairy aire it was the Fed's. Searches should be done by an outside force and the drug dogs are awesome but they do not do regular searches around the prisons, they are a waste of money because they are not working for their 8 eight hours. "

 none of your business wrote on April 8, 2007 1:15 pm:
" I currently work for NDCS. I don’t see all the contraband coming into the institution but I know it’s coming in. I also know that a lot of the contraband is introduced in to the institution through the employees. Not all of it but a majority of it. I’m not sure which part is worse knowing that it is coming into the facility or knowing that someone I may have to trust with my life is the one bringing it in. If I had my way about things, all staff would be searched everyday. NONE of this “random crap” anybody walking in gets searched. You don’t like it, find the door and GET OUT!!! "

 Mark wrote on April 8, 2007 1:27 pm:
" As a former employee of DCS, I don't remember too many people having access to their vehicles after guard mount. Only higher up's have the ability to go to their cars. Therefore, they are the ones whose vehicles should be searched, without exceuption. Why would anyone leave something in their car if they were going to smuggle it in? I agree these searches go to far and doesn't work. I know of a 2 higher ups who know they are exempt, and smuggle contraband in, and last I knew, they still worked there. The policy should be for all, not those at the bottom. "

 Bob wrote on April 8, 2007 1:30 pm:
" They should probably randomly search the vehicles of all employees of Department of Transportation, Burger King, Jiffy Lube, Amigos, etc, because their cars may be stolen by an escaping inmate just as easily as cars in DCS lot across the street. "

 Go Big Cheif wrote on April 8, 2007 2:03 pm:
" I knew a Case Worker who was dirty, brought logs of drugs into the institution, it would have never been found in the car as it was already in his cavity. It should be outsiders doing the search such as Nebraska State Patrol and the Fed's. It took the Fed's search to catch him, not car search, not drug dogs and not NDCS staff. This creep was controlled by the inmates and was getting away with it for over a year... And no,,, upper management doesn't have to be searched, lawyers don't have to be searched, ombusman doesn't have to be searched. If staff is going to get something to inmates they arene't going to leave it in thier car, they are going to place it where the minimum inmates can get hold of it if they fear they will get caught. Keep fighting, there are more on your side than you will ever know! "

 REason to Suspect wrote on April 8, 2007 2:16 pm:
" I believe the Dept of Corrections fulfills its constitutional obligation through the "reason to suspect" that weapons and drugs might be smuggled into the prison as it is a fact of life that they are. "

 Pan Head wrote on April 8, 2007 3:21 pm:
" Its no different then letting the TSA paw through your dirty laundry. Deal with it. "

 ex-employee wrote on April 8, 2007 6:28 pm:
" as an ex DCS employee, I agree with the searches. If you have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? Let them do the search, then go about your day. "

 Cheshire wrote on April 8, 2007 7:18 pm:
" I totally agree with Mr. True. The whole issue is are the 'random' searches legal. The answer is NO. It is a direct violation of the 4th ammendment. While it is tru that the DCS does have the legal and moral right to control contraband from entering their facility, the way they are going about it is wrong. What is next, will the DCS say that since the contraband came from your personal residence then they have the right to come and search your house to make sure you don't ever get the contraband to the prison? No way, Jose. I strongly agree to search ALL employees should have to be searched before entering the secured portion of the prison evry day. No one would fault the DCS for that. It is legal, moral, and proper. However, when the DCS chooses to assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent, as it is in this case, then I say no. If they say they don't have the resources to conduct daily searches, well redirect your funding from new desks, new computers, and spending $280,000 for bulletproof glass for the admin area at the Pennitentiary(check the record, cause this one is factual) towards hiring, training, and retaining qualified staff. Well I will hop down off my soapbox, disappear and leave with nothing but a smile. Good for you Mr. True, you are an outspoken representative for the silent majority. - - o \___/ "

 A wrote on April 8, 2007 7:29 pm:
" This seems right to me, common sense. If you are working with individuals who are convicted of drugs ect. and with problems of drugs getting into the system why make a deal out of it. I really wonder why there needs to be a deal made out of this. It is also known that the pen. has a problem with its employees. And the job qualifications aren't settling to me. "

 Mindless Robot wrote on April 8, 2007 7:51 pm:
" People that voluntarily give up the rights and freedoms that make America America don't deserve to be Americans. "

 Doug wrote on April 8, 2007 10:14 pm:
" Talking about a person's rights. A person has a right to feel safe in their workplace. How would you like working with prisoners who might have a shank or some other weapon that was brought into the prison by another employee. Just like people who fly have the right to be safe against terrorism. "

 Kelley wrote on April 8, 2007 10:28 pm:
" You know, I don't see what the big deal is? If you have nothing to hide then it shouldn't bother you. If you don't like it then get a job somewhere else. That is also your constitutional right as well. "

 Adam M wrote on April 8, 2007 10:40 pm:
" This is a classic issue of due process and the government weighing the rights of the prison employees against the public good. I would think it would be in the best interest of the public to have safe and secure prisons. Searching the guards is yet one more procedure that does this. These searches are no surprise to the guards and they have a reasonable expectation of them from time to time. I am not advocate of the government taking away rights, but I am an advocate of safe and secure prisons that harbor some of societies most dangerous criminals. "

 Employer wrote on April 8, 2007 11:13 pm:
" This is not another case of the Gov't trying to take away or fringe upon our rights. Employers in the private sector can pratically install regulations or rules for thier employees without limitation. The Gov't in this case as your employer has the same right. Case closed. "

 Super G wrote on April 9, 2007 3:14 am:
" As a DCS employee I feel these searches are a violation. If they really want to find "contraband" out in people's vehicles why are they not searching the vehicles of the people who are visiting the prison? These searches for "contraband" are only reserved for staff members even though passing contraband in the visiting room happens far too often. If we must have these searches then they need to be carried out by the State Patrol or some other actual law enforcement agency. I too fear the games played by some staff at the Pen and am not comfortable with them searching my vehicle "

 Sick wrote on April 9, 2007 4:24 am:
" What some of you don't seem to realise is that Mr. True is not opposed to searches of anyone and EVERYONE entering the prison gates. He's all for it. He has nothing to hide in his car or otherwise. We all know that contraband gets into prisons via the front door. Why not search everyone, EVERYDAY, whether that be Guard, Administration, Ombudsman or Visitor. Mr. True is simply standing up for your rights as an American Citizen's and should not be admonished for doing, so but congratulated for having the guts to stand up for YOUR rights and to put up with all that is thrown at him for doing so, and believe me at the hands of the Prison Administration there will be adverse effects. I mean to say, if these "random searches" (for everyone but Prison Administration mind you,) are not constituational, then why not order searches of the DCS employee's home and your home as a visitor to the prison, and your home as a neighbour of a person who has a relative in prison, for no other reason that The Administration deem it ok to do so because.... "WE CAN". Think about the implications if those in power can choose to do what they wish when they wish to do it. Isn't that why our forefsthers met and drafted our Constitution of Rights to start with? Perhaps they just wasted their time afterall?? Let this be not in vein. Mr. True I admire you and support you 100%. "

 Doug wrote on April 9, 2007 7:12 am:
" So you are saying his rights are more important than the rights of all the other employees. He shouldn't be searched in the name of "rights" but his coworkers may be subjected to harm because of his "rights". I can't think of a better place to have this security. When is the last time any of you have entered a military installation. You and your car are subject to search and it doesn't matter if you are a military member or not. Are we saying by this that we cannot trust our military to not bring contraband on base? No but random searches are conducted anyway to deter anyone from doing so. Are my personal freedoms taken away? Maybe for a few brief moments but so what. I don't have anything to hide and neither do the people on here who are for a safer place to live. You can live in your own world where you think you are safe from everything and hope we don't have another terrorist attack. You can also imagine that nobody will bring contraband to the prisons but it show up doesn't it? Where does it come from if not through the front gate? "

 well.... wrote on April 9, 2007 7:46 am:
" Mr. True, are you 100% certain that on any given day, prior to your arrival at work, that your vehicle hasn't been targeted as a conveyance to bring contraband to DCS to aid in an escape without your knowledge? It's possible and it's happened. You have other options open to you if you don't like the idea of a search: 1) walk to work; 2) have someone else drive you; 3) encourage your employer to search EVERY vehicle EVERY day; 4) seek employment in a profession that requires absolutely no responsibility on your part to ensure that you, confined persons and the general public remain safe. By the way, I can answer the above question for you -- no. "

 ex employee wrote on April 9, 2007 7:57 am:
" Being an ex higher ranking employee, I know that the DCS tolerates some contraband entering the institutions. There are several easy/cheap ways to slow the contraband to a minimum. Inmates are tested and punished for drug use. To a point, the DCS allows the inmate to make a decision for him/her self on whether or not they wish to violate this code of conduct and the penalty is severe. Drug testing employees and searching employees entering the institution are both effective, but looking what the employee left in their vehicle when they enter a secure facility and are most likely unable to return is not only unproductive but I believe will be determined a violation of the US Constitution. The administration knows which employees are bringing in contraband and there are several investigative ways to catch the violators. BOB H. please end this practice before our tax money pays an exuberant punitive damage award or settlement. LETS LEARN FROM A FEW PAST MISTAKES. "

 nemo wrote on April 9, 2007 10:37 am:
" I don't know about Ne because I've never been. I have, though, visited an inmate in another state and there are signs posted all over their facility, at the gate , in the parking lots, every where that any car, or person could be subject to search. This meant visitors as well as employees. It is believed that contraband is imported by employees and visitors. We were not searched but they have used dogs and metal detectors there. The idea of search was discomfiting but didn't cause us to turn around and leave. It's the nature of the environment, It's the way it is, but still go for it Mr True, you can't let it slide if you really think you're being violated. "

 Jed wrote on April 9, 2007 12:07 pm:
" Those who say "if you have nothing to hide, you should not worry about being searched". That is NOT what this country is based upon, and that is EXACTLY why the 4th amendment is in place. Every single person coming into the prison should be searched for contraband. Their cars should be off limits. Just because a place has a sign or a policy, does NOT make it constitutional automatically. Challenge the searches! "

 Shawn wrote on April 9, 2007 2:20 pm:
" I thought the constitution was made to protect people, not give people in this country something else to cry and whine about. If you're not doing anything wrong and no one is trying to inhibit you or your life, then get over it. It's 5 minutes of your day. Thank god you have a job, wipe your eyes and be a man. "

 Doug wrote on April 9, 2007 3:19 pm:
" You said it Jed. Every single person coming into the prison should be searched for contraband. Moreover, the fourth amendment only applies to federal government, not state. It is the fourteenth amendment that applies to states. But, it does not apply to searches in public places. It only protects someone from having their home searched without probable cause. Your car is not subject to searches without probable cause on public roads. However, your car or person may be searched without cause if entering a public place where others are affected. Why are you not complaining about having your luggage and person checked at an airport, baseball game or at the Counry City building downtown? There is absolutely no difference unless you see that the contraband brought in is more likely used illegally by a previous offender (inmate). "

 peon wrote on April 9, 2007 5:19 pm:
" I’ve read the case law on this. It says where inmates have unsupervised and unlimited access to employee vehicles, then random searches are reasonable and permissible. When inmates don’t, then searches of vehicles can only be done with probable cause. I can’t think of any inmate at my institution which has unsupervised or unlimited access to any vehicle in the parking lot. And personally, I don’t really care what rights you clowns think I should give up in exchange for my paycheck. If a judge says I have to, then fine. But until then, I think you, for the good of the country, because you have nothing to hide, and because you look a little suspicious to me, should allow your phones to be tapped, your mail to be searched, and you should be pulled over without causes and your car searched by the police anytime, anywhere, for any reason. "

 Bill2 wrote on April 9, 2007 6:25 pm:
" "If you have nothing to hide, then why are you against the search?" I see this as the next headline when the Patriot Act allow the Department of Homeland Security the right to search homes without probable cause or a warrant. Also, I'm sure everyone is aware of the alcohol and drug problem in our schools. Why aren't we making searches of the vehicle in our school parking lots? What about the serious alcohol problem occuring on UNL campus, especially on game days. It seems only prudent that road blocks should be established at all entrances to the campus and all vehicles searched. After all, we are talking safety of the public and how many drunk drivers leave campus after a game? Seriously, I think this is a clear violation of constitutional rights if the random searches do not include all levels of employee after all employees are informed of the consequence of being in possesion of illegal contraband after they are told specifically what is contraband. "

 Mark wrote on April 9, 2007 9:18 pm:
" If the NDCS really wnats to stop contraband from entering the prison system, they should do the following: 1. Search every employee, preacher, lawyer, state senator or Ombudsman who enters a facility to see inmates. 2. Stop all visitors from having personal contact, only glass separated visits should be possible 3. Stop work release programs where inmates leave the facility 4. Don't allow inmates to have access to the parking lot while cleaning, mowing etc. Have 1 type of disciplinary action for violators-termination Most contraband enters through staff or visitors, not birds flying overhead. "

 R S wrote on April 9, 2007 10:37 pm:
" For those of you who compare the search of vehicles to searches at airports there is one large difference, you and your baggage go onto the airplane after the search, whereas the vehicles do not. And how many of you who feel those of us opposed to this policy should get other jobs felt the same way about those people working in bars and restaraunts where smoking was banned, in part for employees, who could easily find another job as well? "

 John wrote on April 9, 2007 11:09 pm:
" I will fight tooth and nail for the right to privacy, but once you step (or drive) on the grounds of the State Pen, all bets are off. Now, it is one thing say the adminstration of the searching is not being conducted properly, but the State has every right to search what comes on to be aware of what comes on to its grounds. This is not a State Park open to the public, it is a prison where the Warden is responsible for everything that goes down on prison grounds. No right to privacy should be inherently expected in such a place, and I think the courts would agree with that assessment. "

 Why stop there wrote on April 10, 2007 10:45 am:
" If it is ok to search their cars that are parked in an unsecured parking lot to help keep "good guards from going bad" why stop there. Why do you search their homes? It is assumed that if someone has contraband in their car they will bring it into the prison. If that is true then I would think if they have contraband in their home it runs the same risk. "

 Current LCC Employee AvGdl wrote on April 10, 2007 1:58 pm:
" I See low level staff conducting these searches. If I should name the names of the Very same level of staff having been convcicted and/or invcestigated multiple times for bring the stuff right throu the fron door. Anyone who has work for NDCS for enough years knows exactly the rotton bigmouth great emloyees they were suppose to be. Seems to me NDCS would have realized that it has to be stopped an the entrance.The Current system is a joke. AvGdl "

 Bubba wrote on April 17, 2007 8:35 am:
" I think it is funny to read all of the comments from people who have never worked in or around a prison in their lives and yet they think they know what is going on. I am a former employee of the DCS here in Nebraska and have worked in several facilities in Lincoln (Diagnostic and Evaluation Center, Neb. Correctional Treatment Center and the State Pen.) for 10 years. I agree that searches of people coming into the facilities are warranted but I think "random" searches of vehicles are a bit over the top. If you stopped and read all of the items that are considered contraband inside a facility you couldn't carry anything in your vehicle, to include some vital emergency equiptment; a hook knife for cutting away a locked seat belt in an emergency, a flare in case of break down, tools, gas for a lawn mower and many, many other items that one might have in their vehicle on a day to day basis are contraband INSIDE a facility. Should we be more concious about what we have in our vehicles? Probably so but the DCS doesn't care about intent when they discover the items during a search all they care about is the fact that you have them. Another thing I didn't like about the DCS, although it never happened to me as I tried not to ruffle feathers, is that just like any other employee/employer relationship there are certain supervisor/supervisee relationships that are tense and sometimes confrontational; imagine if your employer had the right at any time to harrass you with search policies meant to keep the contraband out of the facilities. If you don't think it happens then go bury your head back in the sand and be happy. I have personally seen some good people chased off because certain supervisors decided they didn't like someone so they harrassed them in the name of saftey, security and good order of the institution, there really isn't anyone checking the randomness of any of the searches that go on which is what makes them very non-random. There are a lot of very good people full of integrity that work for the DCS, yes there are a few bad apples but you get that anywhere you look. All I ask is before you point your judgemental finger at someone maybe you should walk the yard, full of murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other lowlifes all wanting nothing more then to see you hurt or killed, in their shoes for a couple of days and then lay your uninformed judgement on them. Life always looks different when you are on the outside of that fence looking in, try it from the other side before you condemn the men and women in blue on the other side. "

 Rancorzealot wrote on June 26, 2007 3:31 pm:
" I back you up Bud, We need you, the whole team here at Prox12!! Come back to us! "

Ads by Yahoo!