By: Rusty Keeble

Law enforcement does a tremendous job of arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating gang members into our nation’s correctional facilities.

Today, millions of convicted felons are housed within our jails and prisons throughout the United States. Many of those are active gang members most of which are leaders, recruiters, enforcers and elders, therefore staying connected and in charge of the streets they used to run are paramount to their staying in control. This means that if we truly want to get our “finger on the pulse” of the gang activity within our communities, we need to look no further than behind the walls of our nation’s correctional facilities.

Correctional agencies have historically gathered a tremendous amount of information and intelligence on inmates and offenders. Most of this data is maintained in a single internal database with little to no cross-referencing capabilities or connectivity to outside agencies. This leads to a lack of sharing of inmate profile information. In essence, the work related data collection is complete, but it is without the benefits associated with when there is no examination, analysis, and practical application of the data in a pro-active manner.

Correctional agencies can assist outside law enforcement in a comprehensive and efficient manner by increasing and expanding the capabilities of current information systems and/or revise current policies and procedures to authorize the collaboration with law enforcement and the sharing of inmate information.

For example, almost all correctional agencies nationwide capture visitor information for inmate visitations and financial transactions for inmate account deposits and withdraws. This data yields a wealth of information detailing visits to multiple facilities and/or inmates and reveals which of these visits include money transactions. The results can be used to identify sophisticated networks for the introduction of contraband such as drugs, weapons or cell phones into the correctional facility.  They provide evidence for the subsequent prosecution of the individuals involved.  As agencies develop intelligence units, they must be aware of the potential sources of information available to them, within the corrections setting.
​
Sources of information can range from general observation of inmate behavior by correctional officers to the interception and recovery of detailed gang documents, organizational charts, codes and communications to graffiti identification.

Inmate Phone Monitoring.

The use of the inmate phone system is a primary source of communications for both gang member and non-gang member inmates. The recording of these phone calls, enhanced by the assigning of personal identification numbers to each inmate, can result in useful criminal intelligence related to past, current and future crimes committed. Some inmate telephone systems have “key word” capturing technology where you supply the system with a list of key or “target” words such as “murder, kill, assassinate, cocaine or even codes like KOS (kill on sight).” These systems will monitor all phone conversations for these key words in real time and flag that inmate for further review by the investigative unit for possible crimes or threats. Some phone systems can even go as far as having a “targeted” inmate conversation forwarded to your own cell phone where you can listen in on the conversation in real time without the inmate knowing it and of course all calls are recorded and can be pulled for investigative and/or prosecutorial purposes.

Example 1: An inmate arrested for defrauding the elderly was identified, via his phone conversations, explaining to an accomplice on the outside the steps to take to defraud new victims for him while he was incarcerated using his jail sentence as a back story for the fraud. In other words, he was doing what he was arrested for still while he was serving time for the same crime. He never stopped.
​
Example 2: Through an inside snitch, an inmate, arrested for stalking his girlfriend, attempted to hire a hit man from inside the jail – happened to be our snitch. We set the inmate up with an undercover officer, via the inmate phone system to introduce the hit man to the inmate where we were able to get recordings of his intentions and set up the hit. We then set up an actual meet, via inmate visitation (see inmate video visitation below) to solidify his intentions to kill her and provide (fake) proof of death to him.

Visitation Records.

Most inmate visitations are tracked on an agency-wide database/system that also tracks visitor information, dates, times, and quantities of visits – not to mention if a single visitor is visiting more than one inmate over a period of time. This can build an association between two inmates you had yet to identify.

There are three types of visitation used today; (1) Contact Visitation; where the inmate and the visitor are physically in the same room at the same table – usually authorized one hug and possible kiss prior to and following the visit, (2) Bank Teller Type Visitation; where the inmate and visitor are separated by a thick piece of shatter proof glass and cannot physically touch each other but talk through either holes in the glass or two-way phone system and (3) Video Visitation; where the inmate and visitor are not even in the same room and in some agencies are not even on the same compound. They visit, via video conferencing.

The latter is the best for intelligence gathering and for security purposes as it all but eliminates contraband introduction and has recording capabilities to record an inmate’s visit.

Example 1: Through an inside snitch, an inmate, arrested for stalking his girlfriend, attempted to hire a hit man from inside the jail – happened to be our snitch. We set the inmate up with an undercover officer, via the inmate phone system to introduce the hit man to the inmate where we were able to get recordings of his intentions and set up the hit. We then set up an actual meet, via inmate visitation (see inmate video visitation below) to solidify his intentions to kill her and provide (fake) proof of death to him. After the “fake death” was staged, the inmate and hit man met face to face (screen to screen) where the inmate was shown our (fake) proof of death and he closed the deal by thanking us and saying how he would get us the money – all of which was being recorded, via the inmate video visitation system. He was re-arrested for this and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
​
Example 2: An inmate gang member scheduled a visit with a high ranking member of the gang he was in where he was given his “promotion” test, via visitation to gain rank within his gang. This was not known to us at the time but a subsequent cell search identified the gang knowledge he had been studying for the rank promotion and we were able to pull his visitation logs and identify the ranking gang member who had visited and tested him – of which he was not known or documented by either the correctional or law enforcement agencies. This allowed us to identify a high ranking gang member still in society and flag him in the correctional system if he was re-arrested as well as identify the inmate gang member had been promoted within the gang. 

Inmate Mail Cover.

The review of all mail coming in and going out of a correctional facility is paramount to both protecting the safety and security of the public and your facility – especially if they are documented gang members. For your gang members, the logging and tracking of these outside contacts is extremely beneficial. Detailed charting of associations and organizational structures can be established both inside and outside the facility. Many gang charters, constitutions, contracts for assassinations, and other critical intelligence can be developed from the use of inmate mail cover.

Suggestion: Ensure that you have a policy of no signs, symbols, etc on the outside of any incoming or outgoing mail. Simple name and address from sender and recipient.

However, be sure to review and intimately understand your state’s restrictions related to legal and privileged mail, i.e., legal mail, etc before implementing this intelligence-gathering method.
​
Example: Gang members knew that we would monitor their mail and confiscate any gang paraphernalia from them for intelligence purposes and most likely return the mail to the sender and not let correspondence through. From time to time, the gang members and their associates would use the mail system to send us messages within their letters to tell us about current activities in the system from their rivals. This is an intelligence source and communication method that can be used by both you and the inmates to keep abreast of what is going on in your facilities. 

Financial Transactions.

The first rule of any investigation is to “follow the money.” Most agencies have resorted to cashless commissaries and prohibiting the possession of currency. This makes it necessary for inmates to rely on money order transactions to engage in criminal enterprises. Detailed tracking of all depositors and recipients of money orders by name and location can result in detailed linkages to criminal associates.

Some systems have the capability of flagging an inmate’s account if more than set amount is ever deposited at one time. Why does an inmate need $500 a week put into his/her account? Where did it come from? If he/she is not purchasing commissary and not running a large balance then where is it going?

This technique is extremely effective when used on a statewide or nationwide basis for those state and federal (nationwide) agencies or private corrections companies.

Suggestion: I recommend having a weekly report sent to you, as the investigative or intelligence entity, of all inmates who have $500 or more (possibly $250 depending on agency size and demographics) in their inmate account as well as large deposits of $200 or more for review, and monitoring for potential illegal or security threat activities.

Example 1: We noticed that every Monday morning there was an influx of deposits and at the time, lines of depositors waiting to make deposits that shall we say – looked to be in the private “entertainment” profession if you know what I mean. When we cross referenced those deposits with the inmate recipients, it showed that most had a reputation or background in being pimps. In essence what we found was that the prostitutes would work all weekend long and then come to the jail and deposit the money into their pimps – the inmate’s account. Not only was the proficient for the inmate as we were acting like his own personal bank but we were in essence cleaning his money for him as it came in from illegal means and then going back out clean as whistle. This also was a great source of intelligence as it gave us leads to numerous other crimes being committed by supplying us with a list of potential targets and associates.
​
Example 2: An inmate is getting a lot of deposits from another inmate or group of inmates – Why? Family connection? Gang Connection or inmate bullying, extortion or cell boss activity?

Documents.

It is very common for traditional gangs such as the Black Gangster Disciples or Latin Kings to have charters, constitutions, recruiting documents and other gang-related materials. These documents are almost always in cryptic code or subliminally hidden in artwork. Coded messages are communicated in letters and outside of envelopes using these codes. These items are considered gang paraphernalia and should be against your agencies policies for inmate possession. It should be considered security threat documents therefore considered contraband.
​
Suggestion: Do not simply categorize these documents as “contraband” but as gang-related paraphernalia that carries a disciplinary consequence for possession of – in our agency, we created a disciplinary charge just for the possession of gang paraphernalia that resulted in 20 days of disciplinary confinement with loss of all privileges including loss of 20 days gain time. Being an “active” gang member in your system has to carry a hefty price to pay.

Graffiti.

We all know that graffiti is used by gang members both inside the correctional facilities as well as the community to communicate with each other, to rival gangs or simply to claim a territory. It is considered the newspaper of the streets or system if you are in corrections. As in the streets, gang-related graffiti in a corrections environment can cause confrontational behavior between inmates and among different gangs. Disrespect to rival gangs and their members is accomplished by displaying their symbols in a degrading manner such as upside down, crossed out, backwards or broken. This type of graffiti encourages retaliation with a required response from the gang being disrespected. This will no doubt lead into a physical altercation.

Suggestion: Every agency should have a robust graffiti identification, removal and enforcement program where gang-related graffiti is identified, properly documented through photos, video and eventually analyzed and deciphered for content and purpose. Once this has been done, you will need to remove the graffiti has quickly as possible to reduce the amount of recognition among the inmate population. Lastly, conduct an investigation into who did the graffiti and if possible charge them internally with a disciplinary action for “defacing government/agency property through graffiti” which should that result in 20 days of disciplinary confinement with loss of all privileges including loss of 20 days gain time and freeze the inmate’s account till restitution for the cost to paint the area is covered. You hit them with loss of their freedom, their commissary, their gain time and their money and you have stripped them of everything important to them – showed that this behavior will not be tolerated.

You will also need to determine what the graffiti was written with and make every attempt to limit the use of these items by your inmate population.
​
Example: An officer does his end of the night security inspections and notices that there was a large area of graffiti that was not previous there – he realizes through symbol identification that it was gang-related and notifies his supervisor. Through interviewing the inmate and further investigation it was discovered the graffiti was showing an alliance that had taken place between the Latin Kings and the NETA while incarcerated to go to war against the Gangster Disciples, Crips and other Black inmates for a repositioning of power. In essence, the Hispanics had enough of the Blacks being in charge. We were about to have a race war – but an officer’s initiative to first identify the graffiti and then act upon it kept that from happening. After several gang member management techniques applied, not a single fight took place. 

Inmate Cooperation.

Better referred to as a “snitch,” there is no better way to gather intelligence about the activities going on in the corrections environment and/or in the community you serve. Every inmate in your system is a potential source of information. There can be many different reasons why an inmate would choose to cooperate with you but none of them should be because you provide them with special favors or items of reward for doing so. Being a snitch isn’t a business and they are not your employee so they are not going to get paid for their cooperation. Yes, there are circumstances, although rare and well above your pay grade will the decision to do otherwise occur.

Hint: We also find that gang members love to snitch on their rival gangs.

Suggestion: No matter how well established, remember to never take an inmate’s word as gospel or the final word – at the end of the day, they are still inmates and gang members and can turn on you in an instance providing you with false or misleading information to lead you down the wrong path or a path of danger. As with any intelligence source, capture and verify.

Example 1: Through an inside snitch, an inmate, arrested for stalking his girlfriend, attempted to hire a hit man from inside the jail – happened to be our snitch. We set the inmate up with an undercover officer, via the inmate phone system to introduce the hit man to the inmate where we were able to get recordings of his intentions and set up the hit. We then set up an actual meet, via inmate visitation (see inmate video visitation below) to solidify his intentions to kill her and provide (fake) proof of death to him. After the “fake death” was staged, the inmate and hit man met face to face (screen to screen) where the inmate was shown our (fake) proof of death and he closed the deal by thanking us and saying how he would get us the money – all of which was being recorded, via the inmate video visitation system. He was re-arrested for this and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
​
Example 2: An inmate had been recruited by a gang through a promise of protection. Once recruited, the new gang member changed his mind when he found out he had to carry out a mission in order to be fully accepted. When the gang refused to allow him to back out – he came to us and asked us for assistance. Not only did he give up everything that he had learned but it brought attention to a gang that we didn’t even know had a presence in our system that was actively and aggressively recruiting – more than 75 inmates by the time we were made aware.

Conclusion

A corrections environment is merely a microcosm of the very community it serves to protect. It also contains a treasure trove of information and acts as an incubator for criminal activity. The public, by design and being uninformed, have a misconception of how a corrections environment operates and that to remove the threat or the criminal activity from the street (public), you must simply arrest and incarcerate – believing they disappear into this dark hole they call jail/prison (sarcastically speaking) never to have access to society again until released. Basically, believing the threat is gone.

Law enforcement, has traditionally held a similar belief, although not as misconceived as the public’s perception but nevertheless, law enforcement historically would make the arrest, deliver them to the local jail and move on with the investigation believing that the suspect is in jail and can’t continue with their criminal activity – not stopping long enough to realize that just because the suspect is in jail doesn’t mean that he/she still doesn’t have access to the streets and/or control the streets therefore directly impacting the officer’s investigation.

Another example of this mindset is how we forget that some inmates although technically incarcerated may be part of the work release program where they work in society at an actual place of business during the day but returns to the corrections center at night all while the initial victim, the public and the law enforcement officer who arrested him has no idea he is walking amongst them during the day and returning to jail at night just to do it all again tomorrow.

Because of this, many inmates believe they can continue and in some cases increase their activity because they know that no one has them on their radar anymore. Law enforcement has forgotten about them and corrections agencies don’t traditionally care them or what they are doing.

This is where CAGE comes into play.

Being aggressive with a zero tolerance position for gang and/or security threat activity is the core purpose of an Office of Security Intelligence and the Corrections Anti-Gang Enforcement Unit. CAGE will pick up where law enforcement left off monitoring the inmates every move as they work their way through the system and upon their eventual release using the above intelligence gathering techniques and working with law enforcement to ensure that there are no gaps in the intelligence or investigative process while better ensuring that the corrections agency is more aggressively, effectively and efficiently maintaining its charge of protecting the public. 

Are you prepared?

By: Chris Rich

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Sovereign Citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement.“  By now, we have all heard of the threat that “Sovereign Citizens” pose to law enforcement on the street.  Their ideology that laws do not apply to them and their blatant disregard for authority make them a high risk encounter whenever approached by law enforcement.  However, these same individuals have gone largely unchecked once they enter our Correctional systems.

In only a handful of states are Sovereign Citizens considered a “Security Threat Group” while incarcerated, but almost all states track them in some form or fashion.  While inmates with Sovereign Citizen ideologies may not fit the mold of a typical Security Threat Group or gang member, they can be every bit as dangerous and undermining to the security of a facility. 

While incarcerated, inmates often look for like-minded individuals to flock too, or for ideologies, religions, etc. to follow.  Therefore, it is common for incarcerated individuals, who often already hold contempt for authority, to be exposed to Sovereign teachings and take to them.  But what does this mean for institutional security?

While incarcerated, Sovereign Citizens are known to spout their typical rhetoric to officers and staff as a way to confuse or distract them and they continue with their “paper terrorism” by filing endless grievances, cease and desist orders against staff, “warrants” on staff, and questioning and arguing in disciplinary hearings much the same as they have been known to do in court prior to being incarcerated.  Unfortunately, their actions serve their purpose well in prison, as staff is often uninformed of Sovereign actions and naive to their methods, which allow them to get away with things that would otherwise be grounds for disciplinary action.

To make matters worse, other inmates see these actions and begin studying Sovereign teachings for the sole purpose of making life difficult for prison staff.  Many states have seen validated Security Threat Group members beginning to study Sovereign teachings and incorporate them into their gang lifestyle.  Gang members are using the guise of Sovereign teachings as a religion and as justification for their anti-authority actions.  In at least one case in North Carolina, a Sovereign Citizen helped incite a riot and assaults on staff, carried out by gang members, by shouting his anti-authority rhetoric in order to boost other inmates and justify their actions.

Even though Sovereign Citizens have been traditionally nothing more than the sporadic individual who has extremist views, it is becoming more common in the correctional setting that inmates who possess Sovereign ideologies are starting to group themselves under the auspices of “religion”.  In particular, inmates have been reported to claim being part of “The Moorish American Government”, which inmates claim makes them exempt from U.S. laws.  They hide their teachings and ideologies under the cover of the “Moorish Science Temple of America”, which in many states is a recognized religion.  However, it is important to understand that these are two separate entities.  More and more often correctional facilities are seeing documents from “The Moorish American Government”, which are directly undermining the authority of staff and posing a threat to institutional security.

​It is important that all law enforcement and correctional staff become familiar with the teachings, thought process, and motives of Sovereign individuals.  In correctional settings, inmates will cling to Sovereign teachings and use them to frustrate staff, boost each other up, and undermine the authority and safety of the facility.  If left unchecked, Sovereign Citizens could easily become the next great threat to of jails and prisons.