Now
Fair
31°
High
34°
Low
11°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Former prison employee sues over refusal to submit to search

Comments 38 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star

Friday, Dec 28, 2007 - 09:32:27 pm CST

A former state corrections officer fired earlier this year for refusing a random vehicle search is claiming the policy violates the U.S. Constitution.

Brian True, a former corrections officer at the Lincoln Correctional Center, said in a federal lawsuit the search policy violated his constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection under the law. He is seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Lincoln.

True, a corporal at the Correctional Center, was fired in June after he refused to let prison staff search his vehicle on the prison parking lot. Staff requested the search April 13. True, a 12-year employee, was suspended a short time later. He was terminated June 28.

In an interview one day after the termination, True said the department had a right to search vehicles parked on prison lots, provided officials had a reasonable suspicion to do so.

But, he said, the department’s search policy was unconstitutional because staff randomly selected vehicles for searches.

Department officials said at the time that the random searches of employee vehicles were part of a longstanding policy to keep contraband out of the prisons.

“It’s a way for us to control what’s going on in our facilities,” a spokesman said.

Reach Clarence Mabin at cmabin@journalstar.com or 473-7234.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Part of the job wrote on December 27, 2007 10:45 pm:
" if that's part of the job and you don't like, find a different job. it should be no big deal unless you have something to hide! "

 First You Must wrote on December 28, 2007 1:39 am:
" Comply with the rules and then sue. You chose to violate the rules and were terminated. You shouldn't be able to get your job back. "

 former staff wrote on December 28, 2007 8:38 am:
" It is taught in training and there are signs posted at the entrance to every prison facility in Nebraska... everyone and everything on State property is subject to search at any time. After 12 years, you'd think Mr. True would be aware of that and if he had nothing to hide, then who cares if your vehicle is searched. It may be a little inconvenience, but that is just part of working in corrections. Get over yourself and your frivolous lawsuit. PS. Inmates get in trouble for filing frivolous lawsuits....but I'm sure Mr. True wouldn't want that policy to apply to him either. "

 Former dept of labor employee wrote on December 28, 2007 8:45 am:
" Give them hell Brian!!! "

 get over it wrote on December 28, 2007 8:46 am:
" its not like the prison came and searched his home and his car while it was at home. it was in the prison parking lot, why shouldnt they be able to search it? he probably was sneaking in contra band and had some in the car, which is why he refused in the first place. find a new job if you dont like the searches, buddy! "

 nitemare wrote on December 28, 2007 8:51 am:
" Hope this goes well for True. There needs to be some sort of government for our governmental system. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander!!! "

 BYOB wrote on December 28, 2007 8:57 am:
" This is total crap, what's next, go and search employees homes without a warrant? How about a nice early norning cavity search before they go to work. Tell them Gov. Dave that even though you are the captain of the state that you had no idea this was going on, pay the guy off, raise our taxes again, you'll have to go a little over the 5.71 percent you already raised them and assure us this practice will stop, everything will be just fine.
Your just another poitition with empty campain promises that will leave no legacy behind and won't even be able to get a vote as dog catcher. The bottom line is, if Gov. Dave had 1/2 a clue what was going on in our state, it could save we the tax payers $millions of dollars, what a shame. "

 Avg Lincoln Taxpayer-Taxed To Death wrote on December 28, 2007 9:01 am:
" You couldn't pay me enough to do this line of work. Most of these corrections staff are extremely underpaid. None of you should judge Mr. True as a criminal of carrying contraband. He is mearly sticking up for his constitutional rights. Whether or not he is guilty of any potential crime, he is deserving of equal justice. "

 Doubting his honesty wrote on December 28, 2007 9:16 am:
" I'm doubting True's honesty. He most likely knows of other employees that lost their jobs and were charged with bringing in contraband to inmates. He knowingly drove his vehicle onto State property knowing that they could request to search it. I would assume he signed paperwork somewhere saying he agreed to these rules. It would seem to me that Mr. True was being False!! "

 Mike White wrote on December 28, 2007 9:19 am:
" Signs posted and the search rule being in employee training and hand books doesn't make it legal, how about I put a sign outside my door that says, ring my doorbell and you'll be shot dead? I'm sure that would make it legal, right?
This rule has already been tested in Fed. court and found to be unlawful. Despite what anyone thinks and before this stupid state spends millions trying to defend this rule, the rule needs to be changed, the man payed off and we all get back to work. "

 JoBeth wrote on December 28, 2007 9:47 am:
" I worked in Corrections and the inmates have more rights than the employees, hence I "worked" in Corrections. It's time this mistreatment of employees stopped and the system runs how it should! "

 Ex NSP Staffer wrote on December 28, 2007 10:01 am:
" I hope Mr. True wins this one. I fully believe in searching as people enter the institutions but the fact is that 90+% of contraband that comes in from the outside is brought in by vistors and those that aren't subject to full shakedowns, i.e. lawyers (at least when I worked there all they had to do was walk through the metal detector and unless the crack was made of metal it went in). Half the stuff you find in a car would be considered contraband in a search but apparantely they are looking for specific items. Its bogus people!!! If you don't believe me go work there and see for yourself. Its all about the good ole boys club. Good luck on the lawsuit!
"

 Corrections Employee wrote on December 28, 2007 10:27 am:
" True should just forget about this lawsuit. He should have followed policy and procedure set forth for all employees. It's the employees at corrections who bring in contraband and don't follow policies that set up the ethical employees for trouble down the road. Don't put the good employees at risk just because someone cares only of himself, keep the policy as is and don't pay off True or give him his job back. It's hard enough to keep the inmates in line, we shouldn't have to worry about co-workers too. Keep corrections on the straight and narrow!!!! "

 db wrote on December 28, 2007 10:31 am:
" I don't know where I fall on whether this should be allowed. I worked for the D&E years ago and some times the only way I could tell the difference between who was behind or in front of bars was by the clothing. They need to raise the pay and make the jobs more competitive. "

 So Don't Park There wrote on December 28, 2007 10:33 am:
" If you don't like the rule then don't park there while you fight it. That way you are in compliance while you work to get the rule changed and they can't touch you. The way it was done makes him look guilty. "

 Doesn't anyone care about their rights? wrote on December 28, 2007 10:50 am:
" The assumption that anyone is at the mercy of their employer simply because of "policy" is the very reason things like this go on for years without being challenged. I say, good for Mr. True and standing up for OUR constitutional rights! Apparently, there are plenty of people who are perfectly willing to give up these rights just because their employer tells them to. It's a shame the state dept. of corrections wasn't paying enough attention to know that a problem like this could come up. Now because of their slacking off on policy, the state will probably spend way too much money on this case and on the damages owed Mr. True. "

 Search Me wrote on December 28, 2007 11:49 am:
" I wouldn't mind being searched for a reason. (ex. Another empoyee signs a complaint form saying I have illegal Drugs in my vehicle) so someone takes responsibility for the search. The Dept. of Corrections has dogs to assist in this type of search. But how about random searches of vistors and any other vehicles in the lot. Haven't heard of that going on...you know,... those persons who associate and sympathize with known criminals. "

 Vanessa wrote on December 28, 2007 12:01 pm:
" My husband works for LCC and I clearly remember him telling me about True being fired. I understand why he would not want to consent to a search, however I am glad that these searches are taking place. I hear many stories about some (and I say some because I would not sleep at night if I knew them all) of the things that go on in the prisons. Believe it or not, employees do smuggle in contriban that could be turned in to weapons. I feel better knowing that my husband is going to go to work and that they are going to make it as safe as possible for him to come home safely at the end of the day. "

 Definition of Contraband wrote on December 28, 2007 12:10 pm:
" I'm guessing that most of us carry something in our cars that would be considered contraband in a prison. How many have cigarettes & lighters in their cars? I have a multi-tool in my glove box because I want to be prepared for breakdowns or emergencies. My guess is that the knife on that tool would be considered contraband. Should my employer get to tell me that I can no longer have it in my car? Also, prior articles quoted Mr. True as saying that he consented "under duress" to two prior searches. Seems to me that he's just sticking up for what he believes are his rights. "

 Taxpayer wrote on December 28, 2007 12:36 pm:
" I hope he wins a big settlement, all legal expenses, and gets his job back. "

 Jen wrote on December 28, 2007 12:40 pm:
" I would think that the reasoning behind being able to search your vehicle is that there are things that you can do in your car that would jeopardize yourself, fellow staff members, and inmates. What if some office decided to smoke a joint on his way to work? Yes, he would be searched upon entering the building, but unless he has weed or paraphenalia on him, there'd be no way to tell. Rather than jump to conclusions, use common sense folks. I can see the first time something tragic happens in the prison (to either staff or inmates) that could have been prevented by a vehicle search, you same naysayers will be complaining that the prison didn't do enough to protect people. "

 read please wrote on December 28, 2007 1:05 pm:
" I think the issue is that not ALL vehicles are subjected to the searches which would then seem reasonable
"Vehicles owned by members of the general public aren’t subject to search without a warrant while on prison property, according to the lawsuit"
Thus the issue - seems like a good case for the courts to listen to,unlike say suing God or some stupid thing like that.
"

 mmmmmmm wrote on December 28, 2007 1:07 pm:
" Isn't not following rules what put the prisoners behind bars??? So Mr. True doesn't want to follow the rules...mmm. When I was about to begin my first job my dad told me to remember one thing, "your boss may not always be right, but he's always the boss,respect his rules or don't work there!" If Mr. True didn't like the rules he should have quit. I'm sure if Mr. True hired someone to work for him would have rules. That's the problem with society today-we want to all make our own rules and if we don't like it we buck the system, get fired, file lawsuits or kill people. We are becoming as unruly and savage as the foreign countries we are trying to civilize! Glad I'm old and won't live long enough to see the total deterioration of this fine land-then again as fast as we're going down the drain I guess it's possible I could live to see it! "

 Appalled! wrote on December 28, 2007 2:58 pm:
" To mmmmmmmm....when you say that Mr. True doesn't want to follow the rules, it appalls me!! He is asking the state to follow the rules, the rules set forth by our constitution. Just because the state decides to change the rules to suite their needs, it doesn't mean we have to agree with it to keep your job! Why should they get to ignore constitutional rights? They shouldn't and Brian and nobody else should have to deal with it.
My husband works for corrections and is very good friends with Brian. We are behind him 100% because we know he is an honest, upstanding citizen that isn't doing this for the heck of it. He's doing it because he truly believes that what is happening is wrong and he's standing up for not only his own rights but for my husband's, mine and everyone else that values their rights. Thank you Brian True!!! "

 LCC_ER wrote on December 28, 2007 7:31 pm:
" Working for LCC I know that administration only applies the rules when it fits what they want. They don’t follow all the rules. Most of the LCC administration doesn’t even know half the rules or how to apply them. By the way if you think that the searches are random you best think again. I have seen that sheet and system that was used when True was harassed and fired. The administration doesn’t use logic to harass people. Another thing is that CPL. True was a far from dirty or a smuggler. "

 kelso wrote on December 28, 2007 11:51 pm:
" Team True!!!! "

 citizen wrote on December 29, 2007 1:17 am:
" I do not think that Mr. True was brining in illegal items.. but he did know the policy of vehicle searches prior to accepting the position at the correctional center. He took the job thereby accepting the rules which he was to follow as an employee of LCC. There is not a single person who would find these searches to be appealing to them, however it is policy and procedure which is in place to protect other staff and inmates from injury. I do hope that this case will find it's way to being dismissed. "

 Tax Payer wrote on December 29, 2007 7:48 am:
" For all of you who are for these random searches of employee vehicles, will you consent to a random search of your vehicle if you park on state property to goto the state capitol, state patrol, or the state office building? One could articulate that the state has a right to prevent contraband from being brought into these buildings. I would be very careful for those of you who want these random searches. There is no reason for the state prison system to physically search a car unless they have reasonable suspicion. If they're are worried about narcotics then invest in narcotic K-9's. If the employee is subjected to a shakedown each and everytime he enters the jail then there is no reason to search the car. I agree with True and believe the state's policy on random searches is flawed. Just because signs are posted and an employee signs a form doesn't mean the policy is right. LJS keep us posted on the lawsuit. "

 My Sign Says... wrote on December 29, 2007 8:21 am:
" "If your om my property I may search you, strip you asault you, then I will take your money." If you don't like it too bad! I posted a sign and you knew it might happen. I was employed nearly 20 years at LCC and those signs were not there and nothing was given to me in writing to have me give up my Constitutional Rights. Mr. True had been searched before and did not think it was Lawful. He researched and found no other agency, police or otherwise had this athority over personal vehicles. This search was conducted an hour after he spoke to Ofc. Wiley in Florida. (Who won his case incidently on same grounds)Coincidence? Not likely. Mr True's reputation has been smeared because he called the Adminisrtation out on the carpet. Having worked with him I found him to be one of the most Fair, Firm and Consistant Inmate managers I have ever worked with. He has more working knowledge of the facility and and rules than most and does not just do what he wants, He followed the rules and he made the inmates and staff he was responsible for follow them. Contraband gets stopped at the door! Period. "

 In the military wrote on December 29, 2007 11:00 am:
" All vehicles are subject to search upon entering any installation. never heard of anybody going awol for that, though.
People whine too much. "

 Mike wrote on December 29, 2007 11:05 am:
" As a former employee of Corrections, I can say without a doubt contraband is comming in from higher ups who are not subject to searches. Most, if not all officers, corporals, and sergeant's DO NOT have accesss to their vehicles during shift or work time. Why would any of these people bring drugs or something to work and leave them in their car? Corrections would be wise to search everyone, or no one. Picking a select group of people to target, expecially ones who are the least likely to bring in stuff is crazy. Wake up corrections and police all your people, not a small select group. Wait a minute...it's the higher up's who have something to hide, that's why they are not subject to any of these searches. "

 whatever wrote on December 29, 2007 11:18 am:
" All of you people out there that are saying this is unlawful and harrassment are full of it. What happens when you fly on a plane or go onto military or federal installations. You are subject to be searched then, so why the big deal at a prison. Hello there are criminals that live there. Why dont we sue o Transportation Security Admininstration for going through our bags without us even being present. All of these laws are for the safety and security of everyone. But I forgot this state is full of inconsiderate and stupid people that will complain over the littlest things. Why not the next time you go to the courthouse you refuse to walk through the metal detector and see what happens. "

 db wrote on December 29, 2007 1:01 pm:
" To 'so don't park there', if he didn't park there, he would have no standing to sue. "

 so wrote on December 29, 2007 5:26 pm:
" i am a city employee and no where does it say we will be searched or our vehicles but on more than one occasion LPD has brought their drug sniffing dogs thorough the parking lot going over each car to see if they detect anything they have also worked the dogs through the building all is done without anyones ok and it is called just training for the dogs im sure it is training but i am also sure its more than just training maybe we have a lawsuit on our hands too "

 Nothing to hide wrote on December 29, 2007 6:25 pm:
" Why worry if you have nothing to hide. I would consent to a search at anytime anyplace, I have nothing to hide. The only thing found in my vehicle would be fast food wrappers, soft drinks, various papers, and probably several moldy fries, candy bars and cheetos under the seats. If authorities have the courage to explore the crevices, I would even let them keep any change and eat any food found. They should be allowed to search anyone's vehicles anytime anyplace, if it keeps me safe. "

 Tax Payer wrote on December 29, 2007 10:18 pm:
" Mr. Whatever you're missing the point of the article and Mr. True's lawsuit. He's not arguing or saying it is unconstitutional to be searched while entering the jail facility. His lawsuit is for the random search of his car that has nothing to do with the interior portion of the facility. If he is being searched immediately upon entering the facility and has no access to the car during his shift...why search his car? TSA, military installations, and court house security search you because they are stopping potential contraband at the point of entry. You can deny the search but you'll be asked to leave. Simply denying search does not give them probable cause to search. The point of entry in Mr. True's case is anyone physically walking through the door to the jail. The car is outside where he does not have access to it. Should he leave and go out to his car then he is subject to a search again. There is a difference. I understand the philosophy "if you have nothing to hide then let them search" mentality. I love that philosophy because I am a law enforcement officer who loves to search cars however, I respect people's 4th amendment rights to deny the search. Personally, I feel the state needs reasonalbe suspicion or probable cause to search a car not authorization governed by policy when clearly the contraband can be stopped at the door. "

 whatever wrote on December 30, 2007 10:47 pm:
" To Mr. Tax Payer you say that you are a police officer. Then you should know that you are subject to search. The law states that any vehicle, person or property are subject to search at anytime. This means they can come interupt you at work and search your vehicle or belongings if they want to. The random search is meant for everyone so that you arent being disriminative towards anyone. Mr True doesnt get that point and he work for the department for twelve years how sad "

 My Sign says... wrote on January 3, 2008 6:32 am:
" Whatever, Mr Taxpayer practically spelled it out for you and you still missed the point. What LAW are you refering to...? There is a difference between Law and policy. Both can be unconstitutional, but a policy has no standing and you can be punished for having an illegal policy. An unconstitutional law can be struck down by a Superme Court if it violates the Constitutuion and will have to be rewritten/changed or dropped altogether. The issue is "Reasonable" or "Unreasonable". The Constitution is to Protect the public from "unreasonable searches of your personal property by overzealous Government Officials. I am not aware of any law that allows you to be searched anywhere, anytime without a reason. If a trained dog smells drugs;that may be a reason. If another employee reports you have illegal drugs in your vehicle; that may be a reason, But since when can someone just walk up and say "I'm searching your vehicle so open it up" when there is no justification, it has no bearing on what you are doing in the building, and you are subject to a search everytime you enter the door. The Contraband gets stopped at the door. Period. What is the point of a "useless" ramdom search, and who are the everone you speak of...? If I missed some point could you clarify it for me with some factual information? "

Ads by Yahoo!