Alabama to require every visitor of their prisons have their fingerprints scanned.

The Alabama Department of Corrections’ new policy requiring visitors at the state’s prisons to have their fingerprint scanned before they are allowed to enter the facilities is the first in the nation.

No other state prison system in the country has a similar requirement, a USA Today check of other corrections departments showed.

The change, implemented in August, has its roots in the prison system getting a new computer program, said Brian Corbett, spokesman for the Department of Corrections. The old computer system still was using Cobalt software, he said.

“Our IT department came up with the idea of scanning fingerprints as part of the upgrade,” Corbett said. “We still require visitors to have a government-issued photo ID, and that requirement will remain in place. But there are times when someone else resembles the photo on an ID. Scanning the fingerprint of visitors verifies they are who they say they are.”

The move is drawing some quick criticism.

State departments of corrections routinely require that visitors be approved, and each visitor undergoes a criminal background check. But the fingerprint requirement is “extreme,” said David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project.

“Alabama prison officials can’t say with a straight face that it is a security issue,” Fathi said. “Not when the remaining 49 state prison systems do not require the scanning of visitors’ fingerprints. It is an unnecessary barrier to visiting inmates.”

Reasonable security measures at prisons should be expected, he said.

“Visiting during incarceration is a key factor that will determine if the inmate will re-offend once they are released,” Fathi added. “There is study after study that shows the vital role interaction with family and friends plays with inmates while they are in prison. That support net is very important in the rehabilitation process.”

Alabama prison visitors’ fingerprints will not be filed in a database, and the prints will not be shared with other local, state or national law enforcement agencies, Corbett said. The prints will not be used to check if the visitors have outstanding warrants, he said. Alabama operates 29 facilities that house about 25,500 adult inmates. (Does anyone really believe they won't share the fingerprints with other agencies)
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20120903/NEWS02/309030008/Alabama-requires-fingerprint-scan-prison-visitors

Probation for sale in Alabama, lawsuit claims.

Birmingham, Al - An Alabama city illegally privatized its probation system, allowing Judicial Corrections Services to hike probation fees and arrest people for not paying them, a class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Gina Kay Ray, sued Judicial Corrections Services, its successor Correctional Healthcare Companies, the city of Childersburg, and its Mayor B.J. Meeks, alleging constitutional violations.

Judicial Corrections Services runs an "offender paid system" for Childersburg, which allows it to collect fines and fees on behalf of the city, according to the complaint.

Childersburg is a town of 5,200 about 40 miles southeast of Birmingham.

The plaintiffs claim the city allows Judicial Corrections Services to collect probation fees based on documents that are not actual court orders, and lets the private company intimidate people by threatening to throw them in jail if they don't pay.

"Defendants have imposed a system whereby the clerical and quasi-judicial functions of the municipal court have been unlawfully contracted to a private business, using the color of state law for the collection of private fees and allowing public money to be collected and kept by the private business, in violation of Alabama law and of the Constitution," the complaint states.

"Defendants have operated the court by clothing JCS with the appearances of state authority allowing JCS employees to intimidate persons and referring to them as 'probation officers' though none have such authority under Alabama statutes. JCS employees are also allowed to construct documents which appear to be court orders, holding such out as having the force and effect of court orders, when they were not lawful orders of probation. Defendants have known of this fraudulent activity, but have fashioned a system of allowing JCS a free reign in collecting fines, to threaten plaintiffs' class with incarceration, and by incarcerating persons who have not paid. Members of plaintiffs' class have been placed on 'probation' by defendants in virtually all cases, especially where there is no jail sentence possible or where it would never be imposed, and this 'probation' is a means of coercing payment of fines, costs and the fees of JCS.

"This public ruse is maintained by the defendants in order to impose and collect fines and costs from citizens, and is accomplished by allowing JCS to determine how much each municipal court defendant will be charged for the collection 'services' of JCS each month, how much of the public money paid will be kept by JCS and how much it will rebate to Childersburg. Plaintiffs aver that Childersburg has unlawfully entered into the business arrangement with JCS whereby the private entity has been given control and access over public funds and the ability to take such funds. This is in violation of state law and of the Alabama Constitution. Further, defendants have allowed JCS to increase its monthly probation fee from the $35.00 once imposed and listed on the printed probation sheets to $45.00 per month, doing so without legal authority of proper basis or authorization."

Ray and two named co-plaintiffs say they have been jailed several times by JCS for not being able to pay probation fees relating to traffic and misdemeanor offenses, and were held and released at the whim of JCS.

They say the defendants did not hold probation revocation hearings and failed to consider their inability to pay.

The city and Judicial Corrections Services "have followed a practice of maintaining persons on probation for far longer than the two-year limit imposed by Alabama law, keeping some persons on for years, adding fines, costs and the JCS fees when there is no authority for such," the complaint states.

They claim the defendants established "a profit-making scheme to fund the cost of the court system upon those least able to pay," and allow no substitute for heavy fines and probation fees, such as community service, and impose fines that exceed the legal limit.

They claim the defendants arbitrarily grant early release to some people, while denying it to others under similar circumstances, and have no logical review system.

They seek class certification and damages for civil rights violations, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violations of state laws, and want the defendants enjoined from further violations. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/49802.htm

Court Filing: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/30/PrivateLaw.pdf