Rumors sometimes run rampant within the inmate population, for many reasons too numerous to review here.  You can rely upon what you read below:

NEWS:  The United States Dept. of Justice has recently released a scathing report against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office regarding their investigation of violations of civil rights against, in particular, Latino citizens and inmates.  The report was issued December 15, 2011. CLICK HERE To Read DOJ Report.  At the conclusion of the report, there is a section entitled "Remedial Measures," which, in part, requires Sheriff Joe Arpaio to engage in community outreach to ensure that the law enforceent needs of all residents are met, regardless of their race or ethnicity.  To that end, MCSO is required to reach out especially to Latino residents . . . to ensure that it is fairly and effectively providing them with law enforcement services.  Many of the civil rights infractions noted by the Dept. of Justice include the way that inmates -- especially non-English speaking inmates -- are treated within the MCSO jails.

The DOJ report/letter is a public document.  In the apparent interests of compliance with the remedial measures listed, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has reached out to Middle Ground's leaders, James and Donna Leone Hamm, to ask us to consult with him on a newly formed community outreach committee (on civil rights issues).  We have agreed to serve on the committee (volunteer work), and the following letter was sent to him to specify what we expect of him and to clarify our understanding of what we will be doing while serving on the committee: CLICK HERE for our letter to Sheriff Joe .

Arpaio.

For those of you who may wonder why we -- longtime legal adversaries of the Sheriff -- would do anything to assist him, please go back and click on our letter to him.  We do not consider our work on this committee to be, as the saying goes, "getting in bed" with the Sheriff's Office.  Instead, we consider our work to be assisting the Sheriff to draw a map which will lead him to improved civil rights for all jail inmates and citizens, including of course, Latinos, some of whom may be undocumented and/or non-English-speaking prisoners.

Only time will tell if the Sheriff will take the advice offered by members of his advisory committee.   Should we find that he rejects good advice or appears to have formed the committee only for superficial compliance with DOJ, we will notify him as such and resign from the committee.  When we learn the names of other members of the committee, we will post them at this site.  If anyone has civil rights-related information to pass along to us regarding the treatment of anyone by MCSO personnel, please send it to us via email at:  middlegroundprisonreform@msn.com

Added December 27, 2011.

RUMOR CONTROL:  We have received a few calls and letters from both inmates and their loved ones who have (apparently) been to a website located at www.change.org.  The website apparently claims that HB 2648 is a bill that is introduced at the Arizona legislature that will retroactively reduce all prison sentences.  The site also (apparently) claims that 300,000 signatures are needed in order to get the bill passed into law.  THIS IS EITHER OR HOAX OR INCREDIBLY INCORRECT INFORMATION.  First, the Arizona legislature doesn't require citizen signatures in order for a bill to be introduced.  In fact, no citizen can introduce a bill at the legislature.  A bill has to have a minimum of one (1) legislative sponsor -- either a Representative or a Senator.  Second, the Arizona legislature isn't even in session until the second week of January 2012 and their introduced bills are numbered sequentially as they are introduced.  In order for a bill to be numbered 2648, that means that 647 bills would have to be introduced in the Arizona House before HB 2648 was introduced.  As this point in time, not that many pre-filed bills have been introduced.  Finally, there is no legislator that we know of in Arizona who would introduce a bill during an election year (or even during any other year, actually) that would propose to reduce prison sentences for already-convicted criminal offenders.  That simply isn't going to happen.  AGAIN, THIS INFORMATION IS THE RESULT OF PURE RUMOR OR A SILLY HOAX.  (Posted January 4, 2012).

NEWS:  The U.S. Dept. of Justice has funded a "Mentor" program for female ex-offenders.  The Arizona Women's Education and Employement (AWEE) agency is looking to train 100 women in the Phoenix are to help women who are currently incarcerted prepare to rejoin society, and to mentor them (about 1-2 hours / per week on average) once they are released.  Orientation/training begins Monday, October 10th at 11:30 a.m. or at 5:30 p.m..  Call 602-223-4343 or 602-223-4330 for more information.  The program is called "Moving Forward."  Women who are ex-offenders and who have successfully transitioned into the community are encouraged to become mentors.  When you call the agency, you can mention that you were referred by Middle Ground.

Question:  At the Perryville Prison, there is "information" being circulated that sentences will be cut due to budget problems, and that even "lifers" sentences will be reduced from 25 to Life to 12.5 years to Life.  In other words, lifers will be eligible for release after serving just 12.5 years instead of 25 years minimum.  Any truth to this?  None whatsoever.  There is zero possibility of this scenario being truthful.

Question:  Isn't it "fishy" that one of Gov. Brewer's staff members used to work for the private prisons, and that his wife currently is a lobbyist for a private prison company?  Not really.  Not unless it can be proven that, but for the special relationship between the governor's staff member or his wife, no private prison contact with a particular company would have been entered into.  And we have seen no proof at all of that.  In fact, long before Gov. Brewer was in office as governor, the State of Arizona began using private prisons (remember Texas, Indiana, Colorado?) for overflow bed needs.  There is nothing illegal about these "connections" unless it can be proven that favortism was played or a sweetheart deal was made.  Absent that, there is nothing illegal about this development.  And private prison use is here to stay.

My husband heard a rumor that the Board of Executive Clemency won't be hearing any commutation cases for the next 5 years.  Can this be true?  No, it isn't true.  From November 2009 to October 2010, the Board was only hearing 25 Phase I commutation of sentence cases per calendar quarter (100/year), as opposed to their former schedule of 100 cases/month.  However, the backlog became so great that there was a six-year waiting period for some persons who recently filed applications.  As of October 1, 2010, the Board has now decided that they will schedule 25 cases/month (instead of 25 cases/calendar quarter).  This will help with the backlog, but there will still be about an 18-month to two-year waiting period once they get caught up with their backlog for anyone filing an application soon.   In November 2011, the Board made a policy change which allows anyone who has previously been recommended to the governor for a commutation to avoid the backlog waiting period once they re-apply (but they must still wait 2 years to reapply after a denial), as long as they applying on the same cause number (case number and sentence) that previously resulted in a recommendation to the governor.  A prisoner may not file an application for a regular commutation until he has served at least two flat calendar years of the sentence he wishes to have commuted, and cannot be within one year of his earliest release eligibility date.  Other restrictions apply.  Some sentences/crimes are not eligible for commutation at all.

Recently, the Board has modified its rules so that any prisoner who has previously been recommended all the way to the governor's office on the same case they are presently applying for will be expedited from the backlog waiting period and will be moved at once to a Phase II hearing.  This will probably only affect about 40 prisoners altogether in the DOC, but it does help those prisoners.

The state is broke; government agency services are being cut; the future revenue projections are bleak -- isn't it likely that the legislature will vote in 2012 to drastically reduce prison sentences or to let priisoners go home on early releases?  No, it isn't likely at all that this will happen.   To most people, this proposal might seem reasonable and even feasible.  To legislators, who are after all politicians, it is not only unreasonable, it is ridiculous to "risk" public safety by releasing convicted criminals (no matter what type of crime convicted of) early from their already imposed prison sentences.  There are plenty of groups (prosecutors, victim's rights, hard-line right-wing politicians, etc.) who believe that the more people who are locked up in prison, the safer our communities are.  So, the method that Arizona's leadership has taken thus far to deal with the budget crisis is to cut / slash operating budgets for many departments and programs that serve the elderly, children, mentally ill, indigent, etc.; to raise tuition at state universities; to close parks and rest stops; etc. in order to preserve and protect "public safety" budgets -- the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety.  That is not to say that these agencies are not suffering some cuts, but they are not taking the same type of "hits" as other agencies.  Although we will continue to urge legislators to examine the prospect of reduced sentences for Class 4, 5 and 6 felony offenses, and to reinstate early release eligibility for certain classes of offenders, we also understand the reality that there is much powerful, effective opposition to such proposals.  The chances are almost nil that any proposals to reduce prison sentences or provide for early releases of currently incarcerated/sentenced offenders will occur at all.  2012 is an election year for all 90 legislators.  This makes it even more unlikely that any substantive changes will be made in the criminal code that would reduce sentences or provide for early releases.

For the 2011 legislative session, Rep. Cecil Ash (R - Mesa) introduced a few bills which dealt with various aspects of the sentencing code and proposed some sentence reductions for certain categories of crimes.  However, his own senior fellow party member -- Sen. Ron Gould (R), who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee -- stated that he would not even schedule such bills for a hearing in his committee, that he considers Rep. Ash -- a former public defender -- "weak" and a "softie" on sex offenders, and vowed that just because budgets are tight, there is no reason to allow convicted offenders to avoid the punishment that is their due.   Rep. Ash intends to re-introduce many of the same bills during the 2012 session, and add additional ones that are aimed more generally at criminal justice reform (not just sentencing reform).  It is still unknown how these bills will fare with the current crop of legislators.  Removing of Sen. Russell Pearce is but one obstacle to reform; many others are still holding firm in their positions at the legislature.

Other supporters (there aren't that many) are Democrats.  Democrats will be eating popcorn and just watching the "show" at the 2012 session (just as they did during the 2011 session); their numbers are few and their influence will again be nil.

The unfortunate part of the above, notwithstanding the political infighting among Republican party members, is that Sen. Gould's position is probably the more popular one among all 90 legislators and the Governor.

We are sorry to predict that we don't realistically envision major changes to the criminal code in the upcoming 2012 legislative session, either for newly convicted offenders or for those already sentenced.  There may be some tinkering with some minor issues, but no one should expect major criminal code changes and certainly NO changes will be retroactive to those already in prison.

What upcoming changes to the prisoner mail policy are important?  Middle Ground has been instrumental over the past few months in working with the Department of Corrections to change a portion of the Mail Policy which prohibits inmates from receipt of internet mail that contains the name of any staff member, or which contains the name of another inmate.  This policy, instituted under Dora Schriro's administration, effectively eliminates the ability of an inmate from receipt of CASELAW -- which always has the name of a person as its caption and which could list a staff member as well.  Also, this policy prohibits downloading from the internet on-line stories about staff members (such as those who might be charged with crimes, etc.), but doesn't prohibit the same story to be received by a prisoner who has a subscription to a newspaper!  We complained to the Director and his Legal Counsel about this issue, and have been informed that the policy is being changed and will be put on a 30-day notice (to inmates and staff) very soon.  In the future, the First Amendment rights of persons outside the prison will be protected when they wish to send information from the internet to a prisoner, as long as the information does not contain information that would jeopardize staff or the secure and orderly operation of the prison, or information which would aid in an escape or injury to another person.  That's reasonable.  (Posted January 25, 2010).

We are also working with DOC officials to try to reduce the fee presently being charged for a first-class envelope with postage.  The current price is $.55 for the envelope and the postage stamp.  We hope to get that price reduced even further. (Posted December 3, 2011).

What about the H1N1 Flu?  Will inmates receive the vaccine?

We asked DOC administration about this. First, there is no truth to the rumor that all DOC staff have received the vaccine, but that none will be given to prisoners.  We were advised that all staff will be given the voluntary opportunity to receive the vaccine when it becomes available, and they will be encouraged to accept it, but not mandated to do so.  Next, inmates who are highest risk will be offered the vaccine first, and eventually all prisoners will be offered the vaccine.  It should be noted that if the DOC decides to mandate (require) all prisoners to take the vaccine, it is likely that any court would uphold such a policy/rule, due to the health effects to others if they refuse.  Back in the day when TB was a serious problem in prisons, prison officials could pretty much force an inmate to be tested and, if positive, to be treated.  Hence, this will raise interesting questions if inmates refuse to take the vaccine when it is made available.

Dora Schriro on the move.  Former ADOC Corrections Director, Dora Schriro, who left her position in February 2009 to join Janet Napolitano in Washington, D.C. (Napolitano was appointed by Pres. Obama as Director of Homeland Security), is leaving her Assistant Deputy to the Deputy Director of INS facilities position with the DHS to become the Commissioner of Corrections for the New York City Jails.  Apparently, she was not happy being so buried in the federal bureaucracy -- and completely out of the limelight -- at DHS.  Middle Ground was interviewed about this position change by a reporter from the Associated Press on Wednesday, September 9, 2009.  We hope that Ms. Schriro will be more effective (read: authentic) in her policies at New York's jails than she was when serving as the Director of DOC here in Arizona.  Her resume is getting a little unstable with all the job changes; and we wonder what is really going on behind the scenes? Addition:  Dora Schriro is (apparently) being considered for the open position as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  We have been contacted by various parties and have given negative reviews of Schriro's work here in Arizona (too self-serving; too interested in producting statistics that tout her "results" rather than producing actual results; etcc.).  We oppose Schriro's appointment at Director of the FBOP, and we wonder -- again -- at how many times she is going to move from job to job to job? (Added 9/16/11)

The Tucson prison complex is becoming a medical/mental health facility.  Will all of the non-medical or mental health prisoners be moved to other locations?  Eventually, yes.  The DOC intends to keep 270 minimum custody/non-medical/mental health prisoners at the Tucson Complex to perform routine maintenance duties.  About 1,000 beds will be added to the facility itself.  These changes will be in phases, and -- hopefully -- sooner rather than later -- about 115 clinical staff positions will be filled.  Clearly, there aren't enough M.D.'s, R.N's, or other professional medical staff employed at the Tucson Complex at the present time.  This will have to improve, and we will be monitoring the situation.  We think this could be a good idea, but will take a "wait and see" approach. 

Is it true that some foreign national state prisoners are allowed to be released early (after serving only 50% of their sentences)?  Yes, although it may not seem fair, under A.R.S. 41-1604.14, the director of the DOC may release a prisoner to the custody and control of the United State Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation if ALL of the following requirements are met:

1.  The DOC receives an order of deportation for the prisoner from US/INS.

2.  The prisoner has served at least one-half of the sentence imposed by the court.

3.  The prisoner was convicted of a Class 3,4,5 or 6 felony.

4.  The prisoner was NOT convicted of an offense under Title 13, Chapter 11 (Homicide).

5.  The prisoner was NOT convicted of a sexual offense pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1404 (Sex Abuse); 13-1405 (Sexual Conduct with a Minor); 13-1406 (Sexual Assault), or 13-1410 (Child Molestation).

6.  The prisoner was NOT sentenced pursuant to A.R.S. 13-703 (Repetitive Offense -- sentenced with a prior offense); 13-704, Subsection A,B,C, D or E (Dangerous Offense); 13-706, subsection A (3rd strike/Life Sentence); or 13-708, subsection D (an offense committed while on pre-trial release or escape from pre-conviction custody).

Note:  For those who are sentenced to consecutive sentences, even if all the sentences are for Class 3,4,5 or 6 felonies, this law would NOT apply because a prisoner cannot serve 50% of a sentence that he has not yet begun to serve.

If a prisoner who is released for deportation returns illegally to the United States, on notification from any federal or state law enforcement agency that the prisoner is in custody, the DOC director shall revoke the prisoner's (early) release.  The prisoner shall not be eligible for parole, community supervision or any other release from confinement until the remainder of the sentence of imprisonment is served, except pursuant to A.R.S. 31-233, subsection A or B (Prison work; medical research, delinquency prevention, community betterment, compassionate leave, medical treatment, disaster aid, state emergencies).

Tragic Death of Female Inmate Locked in Unprotected Metal Cage

On May 19, 2009, mentally-ill inmate Marcia Powell was placed in one of Perryville's open enclosures, pending placement in a detention cell.  Apparently, no open cell was available at the detention unit.  She was given water, but no sun block and no shade.  A control room guard was posted about 20 yards away and he had full view of her cage.  The Department claims that four hours later, she collapsed and was removed to West Valley Hospital.  She was placed on life-support, but because she had not listed anyone on her "next of kin" paperwork upon entry to the Department, the Director made the decision to remove her from life support after speaking to the doctors.  She died in the early morning hours of May 20th.

This is an avoidable and unconscionable tragedy, compounded by the fact that the woman more than likely showed signs of distress or called out her distress and was either not noticed or -- worse -- deliberately ignored.

The Director ordered a CIU investigation based on negligence, but we expressed belief that the DOC should not be permitted to investigate itself on a matter so serious.  As a result of our concerns, Director Ryan did ask DPS to become involved in the investigation.  Several staff members were recommened for prosecution, but the County Attorney's Office (under Rick Romley) declined prosecution, claiming that the investigation was "poor" and they did not believe they could obtain convictions.

Meanwhile, Middle Ground's Donna Hamm was appointed by the Probate Court to take charge of the arrangements for a dignified burial for Marcia Powell (she was cremated).  A memorial service was conducted for Marcia on May 30m 2009, and she was given her final resting place at the Shadow Rock Community Church of Christ Memorial Gardens (for cremated remains).  No next-of-kin willing to accept responsibility for Marcia's body were located after a reasonably exhaustive search by Investigators for the Public Fiduciary's office.  Hence, Middle Ground stepped in to insure that Marcia would not be buried in the prison pauper's cemetery in Florence, Arizona.  We are gratified by the assistance offered in the community from Hansen's Mortuary; the Encanto Community Church; the Shadow Rock Church, and other individuals. 

Go to our Home Page to see the Eulogy offered at the Memorial Service, as well as to view a copy of the letter we sent to the Governor (copied to the U.S. DOJ and the FBI) requesting an independent investigation.

What is Middle Ground's view of the use of private prisons?   Middle Ground does not oppose privatization per se.  We don't agree with those who profess doom and gloom about the way that private prisons are operated.  If they are appropriately ready to operate when they open for business and have good management supervision and oversight/compliance with contract obligations, there is no reason to believe that they are any worse than state-operated prison units.  In fact, we hear many positive comments from prisoners who've been housed at private prisons. 

Having said that, we still are very realistic about system-wide problems which exist in all prisons -- public and private.  

Q:  My son heard a rumor in prison that the Governor has a bill on her desk from the 2008 legislature which, if she signs, will allow all prisoners who are first-time offenders and over the age of 55 to be released from prison after serving only 50% of their imposed sentence.  True of False?

A:  False.  No such bill exists and no such bill was introduced at the Arizona legislature.  No such bill is being considered by the Governor.  This is an absurd, but persistent, rumor.  Your son may have his information confused with a bill that did pass into law which allows prisoners with detainers for deportation to their home country to serve 50% of their sentence before being turned over to ICE for deportation.  Several restrictions apply and the law does not apply to sex offenders, those convicted of homicide and some other serious crimes, etc.  See. A.R.S. 41-1604.14 A. & B. for specifics.

Do you have a question about the restitution deductions which will be made from inmate spendable accounts beginning May 11, 2008?  See our FAQ page for information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW MARICOPA COUNTY JAIL VISITATION HOURS GO INTO EFFECT

Visiting a loved one at the Maricopa County Jail has become far less convenient thanks to a policy adopted in early November 2007 by Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Jail visitation takes place from 6:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.  for prisoners' family members.  Due to a court ruling which is under appeal by the Sheriff, lawyers and their agents (paralegals, mitigation specialists, etc.) are allowed to visit seven days/week until 8 p.m. each day. No legal challenge is possible for family members or other regular visitors to the jail because there is no constitutional right to visitation.  The purported reason for the policy change is due to the jail's budget concerns.  There is no comment from the Jail about the length of time that this policy will be in force.  We can think of dozens of ways the Sheriff could save taxpayer money without having to inflict such inconvenience on the public, but he is immune to paying attention to anything other than his own (inflated) ego.

                                                                      ########################

FOR Status of Visitation At All MARICOPA COUNTY Jails

Each of the jails in Maricopa County now has a recorded message providing updated information regarding visitation status at their facilities (e.g., if there is a lockdown in place which prevents visitation, etc.).  Supposedly, the messages are updated on a daily basis, but we checked each number before posting them below and found that not all of them are up-to-date.  However, we are posting this information to facilitate access to jail visitation as much as possible.

Towers Jail                      (602) 876-1679

Estrella Jail                      (602) 876-1222

Durango Jail                    (602) 876-3555

Fourth Avenue Jail         (602) 876-9001 

Lowerr Buckeye Jail       (602) 876-6007

Tent City                            (602) 876-1735

Rumor Control for Maricopa County Jails:  No, Joe Arpaio is not on probation himself.  No, his wife and family don't have personal connections to the inmate commissaries. 

 Major Changes in the current (Truth-in-sentencing) Criminal Code ?

This rumor rears its ugly head each and every year.    The 85% sentencing code (effective as of 1/1/94) is still in effect.  No new laws have been introduced, much less passed into law, which reduce the 1994 criminal sentencing code from the 85% law to a 65% law.  For crimes committed on or after January 1, 1994, the defendant -- if sentenced to prison -- will serve approximately 85% of the imposed sentence before becoming eligible for release.  In addition, each person sentenced for a crime after 1/1/94 will be sentenced to serve approximately 15% of the imposed sentence on community supervision status after release from secure confinement.   There is no possibility, by the way, that the Legislature or the Governor would sign into law a bill that would restore parole eligibility or even commutation eligibility for those convicted of violent crimes who are currently ineligible.  Public sentiment is clearly against such action and legislators pay a great deal of attention to the direction in which the wind is blowing.

Prisoners who've paid room and board while in prison (while working for an ACI job, etc.) are entitled to have their money returned to them upon release?  No, this isn't true.  State law allows prisoners who work at jobs contracted with private businesses to be charged for room, board, restitution, fines, child support, or any other applicable costs, etc.  No refund is due to anyone who pays such fees while in prison.  This rumor seems to have been circulating among women prisoners, and it simply is not true.

The BLUM decision, which requires the DOC to store property until the release of a prisoner has been overturned by the courts, along with the controlling statute ARS 31-228 (A)?  No, if an item of value is taken from a prisoner while he/she is incarcerated (as long as the item is not contraband), then the Department is required to store the item until the release of the prisoner.  The prisoner cannot be forced to mail the property to someone on his/her visitation list, and the state is not permitted to confiscate the property.  However, a person may not have an item in storage (a grand fathered TV, for example) AND have one that he/she purchased from the Inmate Store.   In such a case, the stored TV would "count" against the prisoner's allowable limit on TV's, which is -- one.  The BLUM decision still stands a Black Letter law on inmate personal property storage in Arizona's prisons (Middle Ground won this lawsuit on appeal many years ago), and ARS 31-228 (A) still controls the storage of inmate property that is not permitted to be in the inmates' immediate possession.

Click here for news articles or advocacy letters of interest:

Middle Ground advocates for prisoners whose punishment was withholding food for eight days

Federal Judge In Missouri Calls Arizona DOC Director Dora Schriro a Liar

How Did They Actually Do It?

Letter to Key Legislators Urging Independent Investigation of Hostage Scandal

Donna Hamm's Letter to the Editor/Arizona Republic 2/5/04hoenix New Times 2/6/04 Article About

"Whitewash" Investigation of Hostage Scandal

Elderly/Aged Inmates Are Real Burden To Prison System