Now
Overcast
74.0°
High
74°
Low
60°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Guard who refused vehicle search fired

Comments 39 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star

Saturday, Jun 30, 2007 - 12:31:18 am CDT

A corrections officer fired this week for refusing a vehicle search said he is considering legal action against the state Department of Correctional Services.

Brian True, a corporal at the Lincoln Correctional Center, said corrections officials notified him Thursday he had been fired. The 12-year LCC employee was suspended in April for refusing to let staff search his vehicle on the prison parking lot.

He maintained Friday that such searches are unconstitutional and said that, even if they are legal, his punishment for refusing the search was excessive.

Story Photo
The Lincoln Correctional Center in a May 2003 file photo. (AP File)

“Progressive discipline should be employed,” he said. “The department wanted to make an example out of me, and that’s exactly what this is.”

True said he will meet with his attorney next week to discuss how to proceed.

Diane Sabatka-Rine, the LCC warden, said the department could not comment on the firing because it is a personnel matter.

Department officials said earlier that random searches of employee vehicles on prison parking lots were part of a longstanding, general policy to keep contraband out of the prisons.

“It’s a way for us to control what’s going on in our facilities,” department spokesman Steve King said earlier this year.

True refused to let staff search his vehicle April 13 and was suspended without pay a short time later. He had consented to the searches twice before, although he told staff each time he was doing so under duress.

A department investigation began shortly after the suspension, culminating Thursday with True’s termination.

True said he does not deny the department has the right to search vehicles, if it has reasonable suspicion to do so. A search policy based on randomness, he argues, violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“‘Reasonable suspicion’ or ‘just cause’ are not mentioned in the policy,” he said.

The state Ombudsman’s Office, in a letter to the Correctional Services director, said “a reasonable argument can be made” for the legality of the search policy. The Ombudsman’s Office suggested the department take steps to ensure the searches are truly random, however.

Department officials could not be reached Friday for comment on the recommendation.

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


$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  
Darren wrote on June 30, 2007 1:38 am:
" Go get 'em Brian! Let them know that the Constitution is THEE most important document ever made and that their position within the government does not allow them to trample upon and sidestep it. There should be a criminal law which makes it a felony for any government employee to violate the U.S. Constitution. Show these hypocrites that we mean business. "
former corrections employee wrote on June 30, 2007 2:16 am:
" Where does the governor stand on this issue? The governor only gave the department of corrections a 2.5 percent raise which does not even cover cost of living increase. I had worked for the department of corrections for three years, and still made same as a new hire. There is no chance for merit raises at the department of corrections. What did True loss in losing his job not very much! As for a long standing policy this is not true. LCC conducts these searches but all of the facilities do not. The searches have only came into effect after the new warden was appointed. Just because a search is random does not mean that does not violate corporal fourth amendment rights. The governor needs to take control of his out of control department. Where does the governor stand on fourth amendment rights? The amount of the legal fees to defend case this will come from the average joe tax payer. If only the average joe taxpayer knew the amount of the waste that goes on in the department of corrections, they would be crying for an audit of the department of corrections. Only about 25% of the inmates actual work, and of that most don't even work a 40 hour week. Why? Inmates get free health care, free cable, and free meals and a free place to stay. Reform of the prison system and change in leadership is needed. The governor needs to take responsibility his department. One final question where does the attorney general stand on this? Because he is the one that ultimately will have to defend is decision in court. "
Too Bad wrote on June 30, 2007 4:53 am:
" If this is aploicy of the company that True works for and he knows it then he should either go along with the policy or quit and find a company that don't have a policy like this. It sounds to me that he must have ahd something to hide or he would have allowed the search. "
jon wrote on June 30, 2007 6:11 am:
" What?He thought this was all a dam**d game? "
Doug wrote on June 30, 2007 6:15 am:
" It is not an unreasonable search when it prevents putting contriband in the hands of criminals. This same type of random search is conducted on vehicles at military bases, airports, nuclear power plants and every other penatentiary in the nation. Your person and bags can be searched at airports, sporting events, courthouses, concerts, and all the places where your vehicle may be searched. How is Brian True exempt from search in his mind? He knew it was a rule before he took the job. He broke the rule. He deserves to lose his job. "
Suit-Happy wrote on June 30, 2007 6:52 am:
" This is a very straightforward situation and the threat of legal action is ridiculous. If he sues the state taxpayers will foot the legal bill. He should have to post a bond in the amount of those expected costs so we can be reimbursed if he loses. "
tortis wrote on June 30, 2007 6:53 am:
" Policy is policy and refusal to follow policy is like saying I do not want to work for you any more. So I do not feel this guy has any gripes coming to him. "
Ralph Thomas wrote on June 30, 2007 7:43 am:
" So someone tell me what the difference between a illegal roadblock (on the reservation), and a illegal search of a private vehicle (for contraband) on state property? "
connie wrote on June 30, 2007 7:50 am:
" Somewhere, there's SOMEONE who knows that being fired for not agreeing to a violation of your constitutional rights is VERY, VERY, wrong, not to mention a very dangerous precedent! Where's the ACLU?! Thanks to people like Mr. Trus who stand up for their rights. They're protecting the rest of us as well. Good Luck Mr. True, and may justice prevail for you! "
seriously wrote on June 30, 2007 8:05 am:
" Seriously, I think they need a warrant, and firing was excessive. But, dude do you REALLY want to work there again after all this BS? "
iconoclast wrote on June 30, 2007 8:28 am:
" Of course, it really isn't random, because they never search the wardens' cars. Certain parking places are not even considered for searches. I really fail to see how it is prudent to do this, the firing, when there is at least a chance the fired person might prevail in court,winning a settlement we'll have to pay out of our taxes. Do you want to take that gamble? "
Tim wrote on June 30, 2007 9:17 am:
" Yet another example of our "FREE" society. Instead of searching people going in and out of the prison the cars in the lot are being searched? Whats next Ms. Sabatka-Rine inspecting cars driving by? How about low flying airplanes? Maybe just salute the warden upon entry, SEIG HEIL maybe? "
hummm wrote on June 30, 2007 9:40 am:
" The searches at LCC are not random because only staff vehicles are searched. Visitors vehicles are not searched because the department knows that the visitors wouldn't stand for the obvious violation of their fourth amendment rights. What's the difference between staff vehicles and visitors vehicles? "
guess im crazy wrote on June 30, 2007 9:40 am:
" If he doesnt want his car search then find a different job.. simple...condition of employment.. end of story. rights.. what rights.. he works for an employer who has a policy to search vehicles. If you dont like it quit... "
hummm wrote on June 30, 2007 9:46 am:
" At LCC, only staff vehicles are searched, not visitors' vehicles. Why are visitors afforded fourth amendment protection, but staff are not? "
Wonder wrote on June 30, 2007 9:55 am:
" People submit to things everyday as a part of their jobs.. Railroaders submit to random drug tests, trucking companies, and police agencies do the same. If I were bringing my vehicle into a controlled area and I read the policy and procedure, I would understand there was random vehicle searches.. Do I think you should be fired if this was your first time ever violating a policy, no.. We don't know his work history.. "
Husker Neocon wrote on June 30, 2007 10:04 am:
" I know that most of you think that the Prison system prepares inmates for re-entry into the world, so they can hold down jobs, and become contributing members of society. (I am being sarcastic, and I really hope nobody believes this). But, the reality is, prison is punishment, and the prisons have a very serious problem of substance abuse among inmates. And, the way the drugs come into the prison is most likely by employees. I am sure that the Prison Administration had more than "just a hunch" that there was something in the car. I am glad the Administration was doing its job. "
abby wrote on June 30, 2007 11:15 am:
" I suspect there is more to this than we are being told... "
Listeningbutnothappy wrote on June 30, 2007 11:26 am:
" Go Brian!!!!! Sounds to me like you are being made an example of. Somebody was out to get your job and looks like they did, FOR NOW. I believe in following ALL policies, but let's get real, seems to me that you were the victim in the random searches they were doing. I believe it was stated that they searched YOUR vehicle twice before....then why didn't they pick on someone else and search their or better yet, why don't they let someone do a random search on their vehicles???!!! Maybe your attorney can ask them that question.....just a thought I'm hoping things go your way "
Bob wrote on June 30, 2007 11:27 am:
" Wouldn't let his car be searched. Gee, I wonder if he had something to hide, eh? Good job, LCC. I think all cars should be searched every day. Then, drugs in prisons might be, you know, STOPPED! Rocket science, NOT! "
Reader7 wrote on June 30, 2007 11:57 am:
" Apparently, only lower level employees are subject to search. Why not subject everyone to random searches? I hope this former employee sues and wins a big judgement, not so much for being subject to a search, but that upper level employees apparently are exempt. "
shermen15 wrote on June 30, 2007 12:01 pm:
" I do have to say He has right to refuse a search but to terminate an employee is a bit much there are bigger things going on in corrections then having to worry about our employees. But that is how the state works if you actually stand up for yourself they will find the means to terminate you. "
State Side wrote on June 30, 2007 1:32 pm:
" They may be random searches, but there could be possibilty that inmate chatter triggered something to make them want to search his vehicle a couple of times. He said the other two searches were under duress fine and dandy, but my question to Mr True would be what were you hiding? Do you throw a fit when you travel to the airport and have to remove your shoes, or at a sporting event when there is a possibilty of a pat down? I support the warden in whatever she may decide because prison isn't meant to be a vacation from society and getting guardes on the payroll of illegal actions. "
Joyce wrote on June 30, 2007 1:50 pm:
" As a former corrections employee, take note that the inmates have more rights than the employees. It has to stop somewhere. Employees are guilty until proven innocent. "
Nub wrote on June 30, 2007 2:10 pm:
" This man was getting paid to do "his job", this process is part of his job. Everyone at DCS knows all employees at DCS are subject to search at anytime, there is a sign that clearly states this. This man was getting paid for the last 2 months sitting at home , while a decision was made. The safty of the public isn't a game, therefore his actions should not have been handled lightly, this is not a joke. "
Results wrote on June 30, 2007 4:57 pm:
" This is the result of an employee refusing to follow policy. Not only is it apporpriate for the department to discipline him, its also appropriate to fire him. I am sure this isn't the first time Mr. True challenged an order or policy. Also, the Governor supports this policy becuse the director for the DCS is appointed by him. "
Taxpayer wrote on June 30, 2007 5:26 pm:
" Why not have a drug dog sniff all employees coming into the facility? "
Ex-employee wrote on June 30, 2007 5:49 pm:
" I am glad I am retired from the Department of Corrections. It seems that the paranoia factor among administrators is even more on the rise. I didn't think it was possible! This deparment is operating at the same level at HHS. "
Chicken Sh!#$ wrote on June 30, 2007 6:31 pm:
" I thought that conservatives were supposed to be I favor protecting our constitutional rights? But by judging the comments on this page it sounds as if the opposite is true. People we live in America and not Nazi Germany. Go True, if there weren’t people like you we would be nothing more than another British Colony. "
oh boy wrote on June 30, 2007 9:55 pm:
" constitutional rights? you have a right to have a job, you have a right to quit that job if you don't agree with the policies, you don't have the right to set your own policy. "
Nub wrote on June 30, 2007 10:16 pm:
" I disagree, this man knew the policies of this department. He's just trying to get some free money. He was fine with the previous other times and why should he be anymore "special" then all the other employees? Brian I say no thanks, your help is not appreciated. "
abc123 wrote on June 30, 2007 10:47 pm:
" I can understand the searches as they enter the prison but why their vehicles? Geez if there is something in a vehicle at least its not going into the prison. Getting on a plane is equivalent to going through the locked gates and yes search but is it standard policy to "randomly" search vehicles in the airport parking lot? "
Gizzzzle wrote on July 1, 2007 3:09 am:
" Way to go Cpl True. Anyone that works in the Pen or LCC knows darn well these vehicle searches are not random and are sometimes used as a tool to retaliate against certain employees. As many here have pointed out before, if they really want to secure their parking lots why don't they put up a fence and post security out there. Also why don't they search the vehicles of those visiting the prison or inmates. Those people park in the lot and enter the facility too. As was already brought up, Cpl True will only be missing out on two tiny raises this year and the next(2.5 percent each year). New hires and long-term staff will continue to make the exact same amount as one another. Governor Heineman has made it clear he has no respect for anyone working in the Department and could care less who is working there. They may be doing Cpl True a favor by helping him off this sinking ship. The most quality staff and long term employees all seem to be leaving anyway. Don't give up Cpl True... Most of us are pulling for you but we don't say anything because we don't want to be retaliated against too. Good Luck "
Can you say guilty! wrote on July 1, 2007 9:54 am:
" Come on this is crazy. He refused the search because he knew what they would find would get him fired anyway. You can look at my car anytime...some wrappers, a pair of shoes, a spare tire...Brian has cleaned out his car and is now wanting to fight - good idea to keep the stuff in house. "
CPL wrote on July 1, 2007 10:46 am:
" I hope True puts these people in their place. For all you strict policy followers---- Please remain in your place of Incompetence. Not all policies are good and even some need challenged. "
To the know-it-alls wrote on July 1, 2007 1:10 pm:
" The department, because of the actions in the past personnel wise: has drained the bucket dry on a good percentage of people they could have hired, trained into a professional work force and actually upgraded security. Facts are 100 per cent of the hires in the Departrment of Corrections were looking for jobs when they were hired. My take on this matter is 95 per cent of the hired staff never stop looking at other options for employment. The other 5 per cent are in a situation where they are involved with most employees not wanting to be there. Throw in the trust factor or rather lack of by the administration and you have the remaining 5 per cent of the work force finally realize the other 95 per cent were right on. If a person can play the game, please the administration and look the other way (very important for job security) at the appropriate time corrections can be a job for you. It is fulfilling...no way...can you go home at night feeling good about your day...no way but the job puts bread on the table and you certainly won't be a victim of job elimination any time soon. If you folks working at dead-end low-paying jobs want a professional career fill out a job application...prepare to look the other way at the appropriate time....surround yourself with hundreds of convicted felons and other employees trapped in their job and literally give up right to plan a home life. Oh! Yes, the most important of all...live under a microscope.. That is the basic requirements of a CO. "
NSPstaffmember wrote on July 1, 2007 5:04 pm:
" I follow and enforce all the policies at the Department. When i disagree with a policy, I employee appropriate methods to challenge it. After learning about the policy (designed to keep the inmates, staff, visitors and public safe) Mr. True had the right to contest the policy, file a grievance and talk to a lawyer. Complying with the policy twice, and then refusing to comply, is not an effective method to lodge a complaint, or to protest what you do not agree with. Please, continue to stand up for what you believe in...just try to find a way to do so that doesn't make you look guilty as hell. "
AJ190 wrote on July 1, 2007 10:33 pm:
" Just a thought, and I'm sure we'll find out down the road but, is a "Policy" that is unconstitutional really grounds for dismissal. And, when was the last time the warden's car searched or, the Dep. Warden??? Be careful what you wish for here people or YOU too could be getting your rights trampled on... I don't know all the details but, having worked for the State for 15 years, I'm curious to see how this plays out. Sort of like the snow plow driver who did a "good deed" and got fired after what, 30 years with never a bad evaluation??? "
Consitutionalist-avgdl- wrote on August 9, 2007 6:53 pm:
" Question: Why would there be Contraband or Drugs in the vehicle after the employee went into the building? That doesn't seem a very efficient way to get them into the facility. Is there some sort of drug seller rule that they keep their vehicle stocked with the goods and would't this be found by the dog's? Wouldn't this get stopped if all staff including the administrators were searched at the entrance... after all who has the power to go anywhere in the prison without question? There have been managers sent to federal prison before for bringing in drugs. Why is now different and why is the administration exempt? There is something wrong here and there have been no accusations by the prison that this fellow did anything wrong or had been under suspicion os investigation. A policy is not LAW! Federal Prisons have not been able to search without reasonable suspicion. See the case law presedents showing this fact. (eg. Wiley v. Department of Justice) The law for all law enforcement is "Reasonable Suspicion". Are some of the people writing here giving up that right on the grounds "it's the policy". Sounds like the "policy" is looking down the barrel of the law. Mr. True, I'm sorry that someone has to be the butt end of a test case for a "Policy". I wish you luck and a positive outcome for your troubles. It seems common sense would stop such outraegeous lawbreaking by governments but they would rather lose in court than retract their policy and "lose control" of their little ship. -avgdl- "

Ads by Yahoo!