On the Beat: Inmate nailed with felony contraband charges

It's interesting to see that the Sheriff charged Dodd with 1st degree (felony) promoting (dangerous) prison contraband as opposed to 2nd degree (misdemeanor) promoting prison contraband. A similar Bic lighter-finding incident in Oswego resulted only in a misdemeanor charge:

http://oswegocountytoday.com/police-blotter/sherrifs-department-fdn/200…

People v. Finley recently examined the distinction between dangerous prison contraband and other prison contraband. In that case the appeals court reduced to a misdemeanor what had been an improper felony conviction after finding that certain contraband was wrongly determined to be dangerous in a county court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I08_0081.htm

The appeals court applied a standard that required "substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility's institutional safety or security."

At first glance, I see that a cigarette lighter poses a fire hazard, but I wonder if one can honestly establish with substantial probability that usage of a lighter (presumably for illicit smoking) would result in death, serious injury, or other major threat.

Having said that, I see also that the statute itself is quite broad and emphasizes the potential for danger. I'm glad that we have professional law enforcement personnel and prosecuting attorneys who are skilled to negotiate matters like this. I'm just suggesting that perhaps the move appears a bit bold in comparison at least to the charge levied in Oswego. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that this is our community and I'm glad to see that independent reasoning and decision making is being carried out locally. I also try to be a rational thinker and I see clearly that a lighter has significant potential for dangerous use. It would be interesting to see what conviction (if any, of course) ultimate results from the case.

A lighter doesnt have to be used for smoking or starting a fire. A lighter, toothbrush, and plastic wrap can be used to fashion a razor sharp weapon.

Gabor, how do you know this and I'd like to see a photo of one.

Watch the movie "FREEWAY". I dont do it myself and dont endorse doing it.
I have melted a lot of things with a lighter that were made out of plastic before.

Brian, Gabor is correct in his statement, I work in a corrections enviorment and with nothing but time on thier hands an inmate can be very creative in a destructive way.

Brain,
She is right. Prison inmates will break a razor and then melt a toothbrush. While heating the toothbrush, they place the blade in it. It makes a really nasty weapon.

Wow. That's like arts and crafts for criminals.

That's what your State and County Correction Officers have to face every day. Nice to be home instead.

Leave it to Genesee county to wrongfully charge someone with a felony when its only a misdemeanor! Its not the first time they have done it and I'm sure it wont be the last. They have done it to me not only have they done it to me but they have also badgered my name. The officers in this county are bored, they have nothing better to do with their time besides wrongfully charge a person. I would love to see them work in a big city like Rochester, Buffalo, or maybe even NYC!! Then maybe I would actually consider them police officers.

i wonder where he concealed the lighter?

I can confirm some of the "shanks" that have been used as weapons in Attica Correctional. Tuna Fish Can lids, indeed combs and toothbrushes, even plastic bucket lids have been refashioned into weapons. The worst shank I ever saw was intentionally made to snap off after being forceably thrust into the victim. It kept damaging the tissue while the patient was being transported for treatment. The can lids are used because they can easily be hidden in the palm of the hand. The aggressor walks up behind the victim and slices their throat. We as medics hate seeing these types of wounds because of the severity of the damage and the high mortality rate. The other issue is that these patients don't go to UMMC or Warsaw typically. They have to be transported to ECMC because of the lockdown unit. The bleeding can be horrendous and difficult to control.

Prisoners have plenty of time to perfect their weapons of choice. Brian, yes it is "Arts and Crafts 101" for inmates. Plus what do they really care if they get another life sentence for killing someone. You can only live and die once in prison of old age.

who in the world would give a prisoner access to a tuna fish can lids they shouldn't even be allowed tuna fish. a prisoners privileges should never put the safety of c.o's or other prisoners at risk.

C'mon now no tuna ? Dont tell me your suggesting stale bread and rain water ? I dont care for tuna so maybe they should be forced to eat it everyday. I think the point of the whole matter is that when you have nothing to lose and all the time in the world you would be suprised by how creative someone can get. I watched MyGyver episode where they locked him in a ladies bathroom and he made a small bomb out of a tampon and other items in there. In martial arts you can use your body parts to inflict injury if not death too.

Did i say anything about stale bread or did i say the should not have access to dangerous items?

I think it was a little tongue in cheek humor from a tuna fish hater.

Wow this incident has gotten publicity on the radio the blotter here and the WBTA web site..gimme a break!!
I know this person. I also know the lighter was NOT his it was found in the "common area" of a 4 man cell..in a pepper shaker!!!
I also know of many of the illegal goings on in there by the guards and other staff members!!
There is a certain guard that does not like this inmate..therefore he walked across his clean sheets with his filthy shoes.."because he can."
Let me tell you something. He is in there for misdemeanor charges. The lighter wasnt even his and he "copped" to it so all of them wouldn't lose the tv priveledges.
The lighter will be printed. The truth will come out.
I am amazed with the amazing amount of publicity over a lighter has brought.
I'll bet none of you know that there are more guys in there on trumped up misdemeanor charges than aren't.
Do you realize this stupidty and publicizing this has made this a more serious matter than say all the molesters walking around our streets and residing in our neighborhoods.
Those people are getting probation!!! Check the records people!!
A lighter is not PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND! As stated above the charge is a misdemeanor!!!
So let's get our facts straight and remove heads from sphincters before judging ANYONE!!!
As F'D up as this town is..YOU COULD BE THE NEXT ONE ALLEDGEDLY farting downwind and being charged with a felonious assault! Wake up people!!! This is total crap and we all know it!!

a crime is a crime i have never been in jail for good reason, i did not break a law and get caught. by the way tracey enough with the unbecoming language.

Ya mr Niel..clearly not a real name..hope you get flagged! Freedom of speech wise guy!! Btw..NEIL is how ya spell the name, so next time you create a false one; at least spell it correctly!!

tracey,

You "know this person" ?

Isn't Brandon your son ?

well Tracey my parents and i will disagree in this instance. that's not the first time i have justified my name, sometimes you see "unusual names" like marcchristopher.

I didn't say that the felony charge lobbed by our county Sheriff was certainly unwarranted or overreaching. Unlike him, I have no legal training. The news that an inmate had been charged with a serious felony over a lighter did strike me as a bit severe. But if that's what it is, then that's what it is.

I noticed as I mentioned that a similarly-situated county approached what appears to be the same crime with a significantly-less-severe charge. Of course that doesn't have any bearing on our county or even suggest that either approach is necessarily incorrect.

The statute which the inmate is accused of violating defines dangerous contraband as "contraband which is capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein." That's a broad definition. As we've heard, a lighter can be used in the improvisation of a dangerous weapon. It can also be used to start bedding or clothing on fire.

The Cornell link which I cited in my first comment points out evidence suggesting that the legislature had intended things like weapons, explosives, and escape tools to be construed as dangerous contraband. Entanglement with these things while incarcerated, or giving them to an incarcerated person, was to be a serious felony.

Things like whiskey and cigarettes however are examples of regular contraband. The legislature intended illicit possession of these things to be a misdemeanor only.

Now the Cornell link says that certain counties did in fact use trumped up charges to portray run-of-the-mill items as dangerous contraband and that the higher court was forced to correct that wrong behavior. Those counties used arguments that sound a lot like some of the comments here: "well, [insert generic contraband item here] might look innocent enough, but if you combine it with this and that under certain conditions you can come away with a weapon (or, cause a fight, or...)."

The higher courts, according to the Cornell article, seemed to develop a litmus test for dangerous contraband requiring "substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility's institutional safety or security."

That standard promulgated by the higher court (the probability that using an item will cause death, injury, or major threat) seems to be much narrower than the simple requirement codified in statute - the mere capability of an item to pose a danger.

I think a disposable lighter is perhaps the perfect example with which to demonstrate the difference. In my opinion, the most probable use of a disposable lighter is the normal and obvious use of a disposable lighter: to light a cigarette or a marihuana joint. If cigarette lighters seep into jail then so probably do cigarettes and joints. Other uses of a disposable lighter would certainly be possible but just as certainly would not be "substantially probable."

Would a cigarette lighter, with substantial probability, be used to cause death? In my mind, certainly not. Would a cigarette lighter, with substantial probability, be used to cause serious injury? In my mind, certainly not. Would it with substantial probability be used to facilitate an escape? In my mind, certainly not.

Would a cigarette lighter, with substantial probability, be used to bring about a major threat to safety? Hmm... well, in my mind, it's a gray area. That's why I'm glad we have professionals to negotiate the issue.

On one hand I think that a lighter does pose a fire hazard and that a fire hazard is a major threat. On the other hand I think that smoking a cigarette in a concrete and metal building is probably a "major threat" to that building's safety in the same way that boarding a commercial airliner is a "major threat" to your life and limb: the consequences could be severe but all likelihood lies elsewhere.

My perspective to this whole thing may be relatively unique in that I'm actually trying to understand how the law together with previous precedent might be interpreted by a legal professional - certainly risky business for an amateur such as I. My perspective doesn't start with the premise that the county is corrupt and the cops are corrupt and develop from there. Neither does it say simply "good riddance, they (the inmates) are there for a good reason and get what they deserve (and who cares about the law)."

I do hope in the end that law and order will prevail. In my mind that would involve the professionals who are qualified and tasked to deal with this matter, if they haven't already, stopping to consider what the law's intention is and what crime this alleged behavior truly constitutes. If it's a felony, so be it. If not, then what a serious lifelong price for this young man to pay.

Tracey, by the way you shouldn't jump to conclusions about peoples names, i wasn't sure about the name Marcchistopher but that happens to be a real one too you can see for yourself on this website. you never know.

Um i know all about Marcs name thank you I know him and it is Marc Christopher!

Is that one first name or a first and middle name?

With all this talk about contraband i have to admit that it is not as bad as a 32 year old "man" beating up 11 and 9 year olds any day of the week i think we can all agree on that.

Tracey, While we're "removing our heads from our sphincters" as you so graciously put it.. Try taking you're head out of the sand. This isn't you're "little angel's" first run in with the law. Truth be told, he has been arrested and incarcerated several times, I read the paper... You should try some tough love, stop defending and making excuses for him. You said it yourself, the lighter was found in his housing area. I would argue that all the inmates in that area should be charged. I'm willing to bet at least one of them housed with him "ratted him out". As for the lighter not being dangerous...A lighter can absolutely be used as a very dangerous weapon without any modification. If you dont believe me, get some powdered coffee creamer and blow it through a disposable lighter's flame. I hope you have a fire extinguisher near by. And yes, I know they get powdered creamer in jail, so pass on that excuse. As for the any illegal activity among jail staff, get over yourself. I know several of them and they are all hard working and dedicated individuals who are just there to make an honest living. I wish you're son good luck and I truly hope he can turn his life around.

Is this the same Lincoln DeCoursey that is currently doing weekends in this very jail?

i hope the very best for those jail people, especially the ones who seem a jail stay pattern. It must be lonely in there. Not to mention us taxpayers are paying for their stay. Spankings are a lot cheaper. If you ask me their debt to society is greater than we will ever realize.

That's correct Dan, I earned my seat there by getting a DWI last December. I think that factor aids mildly in my appreciation of the issue but doesn't do much to color my take on it. I believe in law and order and hold the rule of law to be a core value, so proper punishment for crime isn't anything that I would ever take issue with.

I'm sure that the observations which I made in earlier comments are probably hard to properly appreciate since they're the result of over-analysis on my part. As a layman, I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject yet I speculate for the sake of discourse. I'm not surprised that others aren't jumping to follow me down that rabbit hole. After all, my speculation requires one to first care to look up how the actual statute is worded, then to try to research the courts' recent interpretation of the law, and finally to try to extrapolate from that back to our incident here.

I was the first to suggest that a lighter does pose a significant risk in that it could be deliberately misused to cause a major problem. The follow-on narratives which were provided by others have done nothing but amplify that point. We all are in agreement about the potential for something very bad to spring forth from a lighter in the wrong hands and in at least that sense a lighter is very dangerous.

It's both natural and easy to just conclude that certainly a lighter is dangerous and therefore since it's dangerous and since it's contraband it consequently must be dangerous contraband. To try to reach any other conclusion probably takes more effort than it's seemingly worth, yet for me it's worthwhile to at least consider both sides due to the high stakes involved. As I mentioned I don't personally have a stance on the issue despite having raised the question since I'm ambivalent. In that regard I'm glad I'm not tasked with arriving at a conclusion.

I happen to know that in jail, it's not generally easy for an inmate to get a proper-length pencil or pen. All an inmate can easily get is either a golf/bowling pencil or a short, floppy pen. Trying to write a letter with either of those implements is pretty ridiculous and so not surprisingly proper-length pencils are cherished by inmates when they do happen to come along however they do.

Imagine if it hadn't been a lighter but a plain #2 pencil that the sheriff had found. Perhaps the sheriff would've deemed it contraband and dangerous contraband at that since it'd be so easy to kill or maim with a sharp pencil. Result: felony charge. If anybody were to try to question that reasoning, certainly there'd be plenty of war stories from the guards on this comment forum confirming that in fact a pencil is dangerous. Recounts of past long rides to ECMC with the business end of a pencil lodged in somebody's neck.

Meanwhile though maybe the kid back in our community's jail was only planning to write a letter home and never had a thought of stabbing anybody, probably like the kid in this case just wanted to have a smoke and wasn't planning to fashion any type of weapon or torch his cellmate's bedclothes.

A felony contraband charge is designed for shanks and hacksaw blades and bolt cutters. It's a very serious charge and a conviction for it would be a significant lifelong impediment, probably something more severe than most of the folks in that jail have ever known or hopefully ever will know.

Yet when we catch an inmate with something mundane yet prohibited, do the wheels automatically start spinning upstairs towards the goal of depicting that thing as horribly dangerous just for the sake of landing a bigger punch? Or is it just a perfectly-fair call where the inmate should've thought long and hard before keeping something around which could potentially be construed as dangerous? I don't know and it's not for me to say.

As I mentioned though it does look like there's some case history suggesting that something needs to be highly probable of actually causing a serious incident, not just plausibly capable of being badly misused before it ranks up there with shanks and escape tools as "dangerous contraband." Even if that distinction is actually required, I'm not sure that it would necessarily preclude something like a lighter which can quite naturally be used to start a fire from being considered dangerous. Maybe with an inmate and with contraband one should simply anticipate devious behavior to the point where the natural and expected use of an item becomes the devious one.

Lincoln I would like to thank you for the clear two sides of the story perspective. You obviously have the experience to look at it from both sides. It is very easy for anyone of us to armchair a response. It is a whole other story to have the facts that can show the other side. Unfortunately, alot of people think that their opinion is the only correct one. They will be close minded. Don't take insult. It isn't worth the stomach discomfort you will be plagued with.

After wrestling with this some more, I think I'm at a place where I can see a more-effective argument for a cigarette lighter as dangerous contraband. Getting back to the question of whether or not using a lighter poses a major threat to safety and security, there might be some sleight-of-hand going on in my argument for it being dangerous. I think I can strengthen that argument a bit, and in doing so I'll probably leave my concluding thoughts on this topic.

I had suggested that smoking a cigarette in a concrete and metal building is probably a "major threat" to that building's safety in the same way that boarding a commercial airliner is a "major threat" to your life and limb.

Notice that the cigarette lighter itself is conveniently missing from this argument and in its place is the presumption that the lighter will be used responsibly. I suspect that we give an inmate the benefit of the doubt on this point at our own peril.

It's probably not possible to have explosive material (such as a lighter is loaded with) in an inmate housing area without also having a major threat to safety and security. Highly-trained law enforcement officers don't even carry explosive materials into the jail. Inmates don't even get plastic forks.

Consider a hypothetical case where an inmate possesses a lighter. Regardless of the individual inmate's intentions - even assuming that they're relatively harmless, the idea of a lighter in a common/shared inmate housing area is probably not very different from the idea of a lighter in a classroom of kindergartners. The mere presence of the lighter likely constitutes a major threat.

In this type of case, I think the reason we're tempted to downplay and/or overlook the threat is because it's introduced unintentionally by the hypothetical inmate. It's definitely differentiable from the case where the inmate sits in his cell night after night sharpening a piece of metal into a weapon. As we know from life though, it's possible to do unplanned harm (or in this case, create unplanned risk) through negligent behavior just as it's possible to do so deliberately. And when we do, we're still held to account.