Topic: The Club House / Just Hired

That is a good idea for a new thread. Correctional officers and use of personal self protection devices while off duty: should officers be allowed to carry off duty ahead of state C&C laws, what are your personal opinions and what does your facility and state allow.

Anyone care to start this or a simular thread?

Topic: The Club House / Just Hired

Interesting observation Squeeze! The atmosphere and amity of the patronage at Cabella’s is totally contrary to what the Anti-Gun nut-jobs would have everyone believe. It wouldn’t surprise me if statistically more people are hurt on Black Friday at Wallymarts than by guns in the hands of law abiding citizens during the rest of the year. But being in our profession of corrections should it surprise us? Statistically I would bet that a higher percentage of our “residents” shop at “the low price leader” than at the “outdoor store”

Topic: The Club House / Just Hired

With the possible exception of buying a good pair of boots and breaking them in before your first day on the job, I would hold out on buying any equipment before checking with the requirements of your specific facility.

Different facilities may have completely different ideas on what can and cannot be worn at the facility. Also your facility may supply items to you for liability or contractual reasons. For example you may be required to carry a pepper spray (Freeze +P, Mace, Etc) and your facility may have requirements that they provide you with an unexpired canister in order to prevent lawsuits. Your facility may also require that you carry breathing barriers, gloves, handcuffs, flashlights or any assortment of duty and post assignment related equipement. Again, you can not be sure of that until you are told directly by your facility.

Your new facility may also have a specific brand of equipment or outfitter that they contract with that they will require or recommend that you use. This would be particularly so if your new facility uses a voucher system in order to pay for clothing or equipment. Whatever you do save your receipts, even for underwear and socks as those are part of your uniform, and may be tax deductable or used as proof of purchase for your facility if you are reimbursed for equipment and clothing purchased for duty.

Topic: Security Central / Maximum security for former COs

I think it is great that this site is a resource that offers an unfiltered voice of those that have worked the front line and it is offering decades upon decades of experience and advice. Corrections work can be pretty insular and what may seem like a good idea, in this case having a policy of placing former COs in maximum security, can be turned around in the light of the experienced expert advice offered here by the likes of Sqeeze, Knuckledrager and RCJ and others. Awesome stuff.

Now I gotta go and talk to the Bobs

Topic: Security Central / Maximum security for former COs

It may be impossible to completely eliminate the potential of having an incarcerated officer from having contact with a former detainee, moving that person to another facility can serve several purposes with the goal of affording the ex-officer the same level of treatment as is offered to every other inmate without undue added cost or burden on the facility while maintaining a high level of safety and security.

While you cannot completely isolate the ex-officer completely just through moving that person, it would be possible to lower the number of contacts to a more manageable level. As an example; we incarcerate inmates of all different gang associations. A gang affiliation alone does not warrant placement of the individual on Administrative Segregation. If we as officers have tried to house the ex-officer in a general population or similar and cannot provide for that person’s complete protection then the option would be to place that person in Protective Custody (rather than Administrative Segregation), the same as any other vulnerable inmate would be treated.

Many facilities have a policy that indicates that an officer needs to report to management if they are supervising an inmate that they are related to or with whom they are a personal acquaintance. This is to help prevent bias and impartial treatment toward the inmate by the officer(s), both positive and negative. Even on Administrative Segregation, the ex-officer incarcerated in the facility in which they had previously worked would be susceptible to this bias due to the established relationships with current staff. Placement in a different facility would diminish this possibility and prevent accusations of unfair treatment.

This does not mean Administrative Segregation is not an option for incarceration of the ex-officer, it should not be considered the first or only option to achieve the facilities primary goal.

Topic: Security Central / Maximum security for former COs

Any inmate coming into a facility for incarceration needs to be classified equally and fairly based on their past criminal behavior and incarceration history and not based on their previous legitimate job history. Having a “security background” does not automatically mean that this person is an escape or security risk. Putting extra resources into monitoring one person based on the fear that they might do something nefariously with their security knowledge is a waste of time and taxpayer money. It would be better policy to act as though every inmate has a intricate knowledge of security procedures rather than be distracted by focusing only on select individuals. The correctional officers should treat the individual the same as every other inmate and let that person’s actions as an inmate dictate how they are treated and housed.

Another concern for the facility could be possible litigation brought by the individual for undue punishment based on information illegitimately obtained by the facility concerning employment history.

If however the individual was a former employee at the facility, administrative segregation might be the better policy if placing that person in a different facility was not feasible. This would not be due to that person’s knowledge of the facilities security procedures. It would be done in an attempt to prevent the conflict of having an individual placed with inmates that they previously supervised, officers supervising a former co-worker, and to prevent the personal information of current officers and employees from being disseminated, either intentionally or otherwise, by the former employee. For these and other reasons, placement in an different facility would be preferred over administrative segregation.

Topic: Security Central / Cell Searches

Dayz, I am not envious of your lengthy project. It would be hard to argue against the obvious, but i think in this case it will provide valuable insight. Correctional officers need to provide for the safety and security of the facility and all who are present, including vendors, visitors, staff, and the incarcerated. Providing for safety and security trumps civil liberties that may be enjoyed outside of the facility and searches are not exclusive to the inmates alone. Visitors and staff may also be open to being inspected.
Most, if not all, states and provinces have legislative provisions that mandate searches and inspections as blanket coverage in lieu of a requirement for an individual search warrant being acquired for each case. For example Minnesota has a section in statutes titled 2911.5300 Searches, Shakedowns, and Contraband Control (searched at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/pubs/) which makes a facility within the state responsible for conducting said searches. (MN Administrative Rules found at https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/rules/?id=2911 and supporting statutes https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=243.55&year=2012 post revised 7/23/2013)
Arguing for inmates to have the right to freedom from a warrantless search would be similar to arguing for the elimination of speed limits. As useful a tool as a speed limit may be I would suspect that a majority of drivers have broken that law without penalty on a number of occasions. However, if viewed from the perspective of someone who has received a speeding ticket, you too might understand why one would want to argue against the language of the law. It would be an attempt to reduce or eliminate a penalty
Putting oneself in the perspective of the incarcerated might help to see the meaning behind the purpose of your paper. It appears the goal is to encourage one to “think like an inmate”. Discovering the thought process now might assist you in the future when an inmate attempts to make an argument against policy and procedure. This too would be an attempt on the part of the inmate to reduce or eliminate a penalty. The officer’s job would be to identify the banality of the attempt no matter how cleverly disguised in fallacious logic