They Couldn't Enforce the Rules. So They Punished Everyone.

A man in a Wisconsin jail allegedly threatens the woman he's accused of abusing. Another is accused of trying to intimidate a witness. Prosecutors discover thousands of attempted phone calls, threatening messages, and one inmate allegedly using 81 other inmates' PIN numbers to maintain contact.

Serious allegations. Serious failures.

So Milwaukee County responds by shutting off tablet messaging for an entire correctional facility.

Problem solved.

Except the problem wasn't the tablet.

And I know something about how these systems work. I've used them from the other side of the wall.

There's a detail missing from much of the public conversation. A detail that changes the questions we should be asking.

The invitation was the gate

Here's how the messaging process worked when I was incarcerated.

You initiated contact through the system. The person outside received an email invitation. They had to accept it and establish an account before you could exchange messages.

And those connections were account-specific.

• 1. Initiate
  The person inside starts the request. Not a cold open to the world.
• 2. Invitation
  The person outside gets an email. They have to accept it.
• 3. Account
  Register. Verify identity. Jail Director Joshua Briggs described this to WISN in September.
• 4. That account only
  The connection is specific. Not a hall pass to every tablet in the building.

So when headlines describe inmates using tablets to contact victims, there's a question sitting in the middle of the story:

How was the contact established?

Not whether threatening someone is acceptable. It isn't.

Not whether violating a no-contact order is a crime. It is.

I'm asking how the communication took place. Because the distinction matters.

Prosecutors also alleged threatening tablet messages — and 81 other inmates' PIN numbers used to keep contact.

The number that prints

It's the kind of number that makes a headline irresistible. It also demands an explanation.

Those PINs represent other inmate accounts. Messaging through another inmate's account, in the process I lived, ordinarily requires the outside recipient to have established contact with that account.

That's different from phone calls, which operate under different controls.

Which 81? Which channel?

• Calls or tablets?
  Which of those 81 accounts were telephone, and which were messaging?
• New approvals?
  Did the outside recipient approve additional messaging connections?
• Already authorized?
  Were some accounts already on the list?
• After withdrawal?
  Did any contact continue after approval was pulled?

We don't know. And that's precisely the problem.

Here's something else I've learned from experience: borrowing another inmate's PIN can be a way around a no-contact restriction when the people involved want to maintain communication and a third party permits the account use.

That doesn't prove it happened that way in this case.

The woman reportedly told investigators she blocked calls, changed phone numbers, and continued to receive unwanted contact. Those allegations deserve to be taken seriously. People can also accept communication under pressure, fear, manipulation, or the complicated emotional circumstances of an abusive relationship.

But understanding the mechanics isn't blaming the victim. It's investigating the system.

An initial authorization doesn't excuse a later threat. A previous relationship doesn't override a court order. And an approved account doesn't prove that the recipient knew somebody else was using it.

All true. Now can we please find out what actually happened?

The machine didn't invent the misconduct

A correctional institution has a responsibility to enforce restrictions on the people under its supervision.

The reported failures involve prohibited contact, credential sharing, monitoring, and enforcement. Those are specific problems with specific possible solutions.

Suspend an offender's communication privileges. Enforce account restrictions. Investigate credential sharing. Create procedures for protected recipients. Make no-contact orders actionable within the communication system.

And when existing controls fail, determine why before declaring the entire service the enemy.

Temporary, they said

County Executive David Crowley ordered all tablet messaging disabled at Milwaukee County's Community Reintegration Center until additional safeguards were established. He also urged the separately administered county jail to do the same.

The county calls it a temporary protective measure.

Maybe it will be.

But temporary measures have consequences, too.

They followed the rules

They didn't borrow anybody's PIN. They didn't threaten a witness. They didn't violate a no-contact order.

And now they're losing a means of communication because other people didn't.

That's collective punishment in practical effect, whether or not officials choose to call it that.

Yes, phone calls and visits remain at the CRC. One channel still got taken from everyone because officials apparently cannot yet guarantee that particular individuals won't misuse it.

When a system fails to control the people breaking its rules, restricting everybody is the easiest solution. It's not necessarily the right one.

This is happening during a Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign. Crowley is running against Republican Tom Tiffany, whose campaign has made the jail-tablet controversy a political issue.

That's relevant context. It doesn't make the underlying allegations imaginary, and it doesn't establish anybody's motives.

But it creates a powerful incentive for simple answers.

Except the actual story contains account verification, recipient authorization, individual court restrictions, borrowed credentials, calls, messages, and enforcement failures.

None of that fits neatly into a campaign commercial.

The public deserves to know which controls worked, which failed, and which were never properly enforced.

What Milwaukee County and ICSolutions should explain

• How many used it clean?
  Inmates on the system without incident.
• Original connections
  In the cases prompting this suspension, how were they authorized?
• Third-party accounts
  Did those inmate accounts have separately approved recipients?
• Split the 81
  Which borrowed PINs were telephone, which were tablet?
• Clock
  When were restrictions entered? When were violations found? How fast did they act?
• The real question
  What specific failure requires shutting down messaging for everyone rather than restricting the people responsible?

These questions can be investigated without publicly exposing victims' private communications or identities.

There's a difference between protecting someone and withholding the information necessary to evaluate a public institution's response.

Author's note: My description of account-specific authorization is based on firsthand experience. The public reporting confirms recipient invitation and identity-verification requirements but does not establish the complete authorization history in these individual cases. The allegations described above have not all been adjudicated.

Leave a mark